01-09-1996 ARC Packet• ' ' � • �
� �,' � 1 � � i
' `•'�' ' � •lllL' 1'1
� ) .
� ;. . .,.�
1. Call to Order - 8:00 o'clock p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of December 13, 1995 IVleeting IVlinutes.
5. �4cknowrledge Receipt of Various Repoa�ts/Correspondence:
a. Part 150 Policy Advisory Committee - December 19, 1995 meeting
agenda including:
List of Eligible Homes in IViendota Heights
- Boundary Block Letter from Chairman Grieve
FAA Boundary Block letter
Har�douts and. Overheads from December 19, 1995 meeting
b. LetteP from Jeff Hamiel, MAC, regarding MAC's seven year CIP
c. Economic Impact Study Status Report to IVrAC Dual Track Task Force
d. Eagan Airport Relations Commission agendas for December and
January
6. Un#6nished and �lew �usiness:
a. Discuss Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Mendota Heights Position on the Dual Track
Environmental Impact Study Response
b.. Discuss IVlendota Heights Action Plan
�
__ l
7. Updates
a. City Council Decision on Non-Simuitaneous Departure Procedure
Implementation.
b. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles to be Presented at January 17,
1996 IVIASAC Operations Meeting.
8. Other Comments or Concerns.
9. Adjourn.
Auxiliary aicds for d'osabled persons are available upon r�quest ai leasi 120
hours cn advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours 6s received, the Ciiy of
Nlendota Heights will rreake every attempt to provide the aicis, however, this
may not be possible on short notice. Please contact Gity Administraiion at
452-1850 with requests.
� 1 1 � . ,� ;
7anuary 5, 1996
To: Airport Relations Commission
r In rim Ci Ad���tor
From: Kevm Batchelde , te ty
Subject: Discuss Mendota Heights Air Noise Action Plan
1 �.
At the December meeting, Chair Scott Bea.dy requested that the Mendota. Heights A.ir
Noise Action Plan be pla.ced on the agenda for discussion and to begin the process of
reviewing the plan and upda.ting it. Please see attached Mendota Heights .Airport Noise Plan
of Acti.on.
The Commission should discuss how to proceed with reviewing and upda.ting this
document. I propose that the previously listed goals should be reviewed to determine whether
they aze still valid, or in need of revision or deletion.
Also atta.ched is a copy of the topic__list which was generated in August by the Northern
Dakota County Airport Relations Commission.
The Commission should review the our existing Airport Noise Plan of Action and
should offer suggestions as to how it needs to be upda.ted.
C'� a
C�
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL ItVTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
TOPICS OF INTEREST
1. Phase-Out of Noisy Stage II Aircraft.
2. Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations.
3. Composition of MAC Body - Accountability Issues.
4. MSP �ong-Term Comprehensive Planning Issues - Expansion of Exisfiing
Airport.
5. Dual Track Airport Relocation to Hasfiings Site.
6. Remote Runway Development Option.
7. FAA Airspace Usage Study.
FAA "Close-In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures.
Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues.
Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedures.
11. Runway 4-22 Extension Issue - Mediation Underway.
12. Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update and Related Land Use
Controls.
13. Noise Measurement Issues - Usefulness of Ldn65 Contour.
14. Equity of Current Runway Use Sys�em.
15. Sound Insulation of Air Noise Impacted Homes - FAA Part 150 Program.
16. Sound Insulation of Air Noise Impacted Schools - St. Thomas and Visitation.
17. Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS)
18. Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure Over Minneapolis.
19. Aircraft Engine Run-up Noise.
20. Global Positioning Satellite Technology - Implement 1995-96.
_ _ _ _. __ _ ,
t
� � l; . � i. � : � ; . 1� :
I �' i : i: ; I I' 1: 1 • I r • � �',� • �. •' ti
a) Non-Simultaneous Takeof� Procedures
b� Rate of Climb Procedures
c) Mandatory Nighttime Restrictions
2. Heighten Avuareness of II�H Air Noise Concerns
a) Distribution of Refrigerator I�lagnets
b) Expanded Mailing List of ARC Agenda
c) Appoontmeret of Ci�y Resident to the MAC
' � : � �: � ' �
a) Prevent Construc�ion of i'hird North
Parallel Runway
4. Conversion to Stage I11 Quieter Aircraft �leet
a) A�sure- Converseon by the Year 2000
5. Noise Reduction Through Litigation
a) Possib9e Legal Chailenge?
6. Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation
a) Assure School Sound Insulation
0
C�
C�
. � . �' � � . � ;
' 1 :� �' .
0
A) Action P1an Development I'rocess
B) List oi Possible Topics of Consideration
C) Action Plan �lements:
l. Noise Red.uction Through Modified. Takeoff Proced.ures
t �-�� a) Implementation oi Non-Simultaneous Takeoff
;� �
'- Proced.ures Which M;n�m»e Mendota Heights .Ai.r
!� �` - Noise Exposure �
,_... i�i� n l� r�- ��e�s.mru��-rt� � ��vf- .. �fz� Lo bb �,�,-
b) �dt�p�ivn of "Close-In" vs. "Dista�nt" Takeoff
� Procedures to Reduce Noise Generation Over
Mendota Heights � �..sz.r ���, I �, ���,.���,
�
c) Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff
Regulaiions to Red.uce Noise Generation Over
Mendota Heights
�� `l I c.����� ��h��c.,�..��t /�a�,(.�_.S
'�'"
Page 2
c,
�'
�
. � • �;� � • �
. � � , ., � . �
2. Heighten Awareness of 1V�endota Heights A.ir Noise
Concerns � 1�j� ���-- �� S f-��-� C��
���� �� c�� � � N��� �� �
C�� ���� a) Pr,oduce and Distribute Informat�ve Refrigerator
� Ma ets Ac�vertisin t�..e MAC Noise Com laint
� g P
Lin.e �-5�,«�t�ss-�...t / �-�-i � 1 �e-ec�. �emina��s
. �
b) Expand. Distribution of Air Noise Related
Information
c) Appoin�bment of City Resident to the Metropolita�.
Airports Commission �
''' ��. - c� �rr� -i-� '�' ,�
a) 1'revent Construction of �'hird North Parallel
�� � Runwa
Y
4. � Conversion to Stage III Quieter A.ircraft
a) Assure Conversion���d.eral Deadline of Year
� �� � �
rl��
��p ��� � �� ��q�] ��o
�.��"�-- �1 �..�-'� - --
Page 3
fl� �c,�.,a.c� c�..�.�-c�R- -f�'�.C'JC� . �
�'� �u.x�u� c� pb�f�� ��Y� -P�S
�e.� Q C� t� hC�- ��� I�� C�C�� �.-
�N o��-- com;�� 1 � -I�� �c� ��-� �
C�
5.
. , . � , , . , ,
� ; .' �. ., '. .. - .��.
' ' ' ;'_ ' ' ' � ' ' ' ' ' _ " '�_ ' ; �' ''' ' " " " ' "• ''
Noise Iteduction Through Litigation
a) I�etexmine Feasibility of a Lega1 Challenge to
C:urrent Air Noise Distributioa�
6. A,ir Noise Mitigation 'Through Sound Insulation
a) Assure Ixistallation of Sound Insulation in
Schools Affected. by Air Noise Exposure
C
i
`.:� Air NoiSe Pl�.n of ACt10n
�;,�__ -
-- - - - � - . .. _ A►.ction �'lan evelo ent ]Process - --
; .
i -
;,
� � ; * Identify Focus Issue
�, �
� � * Identify Specific Goal
�
- * I.,ist vVhat Need.s To Be Done - Action Steps
�:_: . .
., * Identify Wh.o Will Work On Each Step
� �
:,� * Determine When Each Step Is To Be Done
���� �
, .
�
��
a
)
� .
��
{ �
i_.i
� ; Page 5
,
� .
�
0
. ,� . i � � . �
r - '-� �� � � •r �� -� , ,',-r � r -�
•. 'i�r -�i.� . �i r " �r �� .�-r
.,-• ':• -r
� - -,•� ' • - •�� -
i � i �� ��t ,
A�tion Steps:
t
n
�� � . ReV1eW jJreV1011S MAC
,-- ; representa.iions on issue
�. _i Wl�il. �;1� �;OU11C11
� 2.
ti i
a
Draft letter to MA.0 requesting
update on revised non simultaneous
takeoff proced.ures - i.nxvite Mr.
�Iamiel to upcoming AR.0 meeting
�
St�%�.�:
Staff
�, � ����. ,�.
J�ne 16, 1994
July 1994
�-�-�� �• ��r �•r r� , � � . , ••,
.�� �i . - ��-.r � .� � .���
.� � ��r -��-� , r� � �- � � -�'
� ; Page 6
Issue:
� Y Goa1:
�:
. , . �' . , i � 1
Ivoise Red.uction Through IVlodified Takeoff Proceclures
Adoption of "Close-In" vs. °'Distant'° Takeoff Proced.ures
to �.2ed.uce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights
d
� Action Steps:
��=;
. �•
�
1. Review FAA Requirements Staff/AR.0 Jun.e 16, 1�94
� � � with City Council
��
� 2. Continue Parti.cipa�ion on Staff/Council On going
MASAC Operations Committee
�� � which is currently reviewing _issue
� 3. M[ASAC C)perations Gom�ittee
� reports to full MASAC
,
�M�:�y: _ � • ' �
. . . .�� �����. �, �� . .
. � ' .�� �� .,� � ��,�-
�� �
5. MAC Pla�nning and Environment
reports recommendation. to MAC
f~
�`?� 6. MAC recommends to FAA
procedure be tested
�r
�
Aug. 1994?
Sept. 1994?
Sept. 1994?
C
' ' Continued
��
�:,>�
� Issue: Noise Red.uction Through Modified Takeoff Proced.ures
.� Goal: Adoption of "Close-In" vs. "Distamt°' Takeoff Proced.ures
_� to IZed�.ce l�toise Geme�a�ion Ove� Mendota Heig�ts
Action Steps: ,
��� 7. F�. designs flight proced.ure
�..�
be tested. .
'� S. FAA begin.s flight test
;:
� .
i
;i �
;
�
�, ? Page 8
��
_ _. .
�_ �_
.�.
�-�
Sept. 1994?
Sept. 1994?
Ca
. � • � , � . �
•, . ..� �� � • •i �� -� .,-� ' • -�
� r•� �� � .��. t �� i�- .,-• ''-� . •� �
,.� � .�. , �r � _�r� , . •�
' ri -�
�
� Review previous MA.0
��� 1.
representations on issue
r � � wit1�. City Council
l._ ? .
--� 2. ReSe�Cil 111�tt1111e fl1�lt
� x�estrictions im.posed at ot�her
� -.� U. S . airports
i i
� 3. Depending upon iindings,
L prepare request to MAC
for adoption of more stri�gent
�-� requi.rements
�_ -
;�
�
�.�a
'f
��
r � -. •
�•
.
..
Sta��1�.�.0
.
.•
,- . ••.
Sept. 1994
Oct. -Nov.
1994
�
C
� ' _ .t. � ; , ' � � ;
' Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota� Heights Air Noise Concerns
� Goa1: Produce and Distribute Informa i '
t ve IZefrigerator Magnets
(-��, Advertis�ng the MAC Air Noise Complaint I,ine.
� Action Ste s:
P
�,
e
�-� 1.� Investigate costs of magnet
� � production and d.istributio�
�� 2. Co�mission to review design
L� � �
-� 3. Order delivered. to City �Iall
( 4 o Magnets distributed. to� Council
_� and Airport IZelations Commission
�_.: 5. Commission to xeview final letter
. . and news release
_j .
�/iagnets distributed. to residents
Add.itional magnets available at
City Ha11 upon request
Page 10
�•
_��
r ,.,
May 1994
�rin �� �- ; •�.
June 16, 1994
Staff Ju.ne 16, 1994
'�� �� �� �:� ,,�
Staff
Staff
July 29, 1994
Until Gone
C
� � . � � ' � , ;
�� Issuee Heighten Awareness of Mendota �Ieights A� Noise Concerns
� CToa1: Expand Distribut�on of Air Noise �2elated. Informatio�
,
�� A�Etion Ste s: � _
P
�
� 1. Expand mailing list for ARC agenda
�-� to include State Senators and Reps.
i.� �
� 2. Mail letters to State Senators and
Representatives introducin.g ARC
[�
!_�3 o Invite guests to montll.ly ARC
�- ; meeti.ngs (ie. , Mr. Hamiel, Mr.
�--� - Wagoner, State elected. ofFicials)
��:
� 4. Expand coverage of air noise issues
, in City newsletter
�
; 5. Continue distribution of refrigerator
�.: magnets advertising 1VIAC air noise
complaint line
c�
,� -�
, • . � �.
St�iff Aug. 1994
Staff On goYng
Staff Aug.1994
Staff On going
C
��` Air I�Toise I'lan of Acti.on
�:�:�
;
�� Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heigb.ts .Air Noise Concerns
CC7roa1: Appointment of City 12esident io the Metropolitan Airports
Comnussion
Action Steps:
� . - -1: Review curreni d.istribution of
�£�� MAC Commissioners witlz ARC
.�,
: 2. Prepare letter to gubex�n�atorial
` � candidates asking for their
� posttion on MSP expansion,
corridor use, l�IAC representation
(�
,
`-� 3. Discuss City concerns with our
current MAC representative
Monitor gubernatarial election
thi.s fa11
Discuss concerns wi�li State
Senators a.n.d Reps. regarding
composition of MAC
' 6. Draft legislation to amend
!y;�}I`��� number of commissioners
�S7Sk
' � and districts bou.�daries
represented
Page 12
Staff
�,.
.•
Staff
When
Aug. 1994
Sept. 1994
Oct. 1994
Nov. 1994
.J �, ,t ••
Staff Jan. 1995
v
i .I
,.,�
I:�.,
0
� � • �' � ' � �
. � � . �� � �� � .,� . � .
.
�. r ' . 1 •,1 •'1 • , 1 � • I M, . ' � •
� �� _�
�
#
�
d
�'� 1. Update Commission on status
f of MSP � LTCP study
(_� �
�2. . Conti.nue participation on MSP
Technical Workin Committee
g
!,�
� 3. Res ond to ublic comment
__ P P _
�-� request on Draft Alternative
� Environmental Docu�ment for MSP
�:
�' 4. Retain ex�perts to assist in efforts
� to prevent t�.e designation of the
�- � third nor�h parallel runway as �h.e
preferred. MSP expansion alternative
r� � �
C�
��.
�-�
Sept. 1994
. ,,
5. Respond to public comment Council/ Dec. 1994
request on Final Alterriative ARC �
Environmental Document for MSP
C
C
..:;;
. � • � , � . �
- Issu�: Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft
�� Goa1: Assure Conversion by Federal Deadline o� Year 2000
,. v
Action Steps: Who When
.1-.- IZeview �A obligations :to
�� MAC regardin.g Stage II phaseout
;t3;y • •
and research fleet mix at various �
a,irports around the country
�� 2. Prepare letter to MAC regarding
�' ongoing contract talks with NWA
�: to request inclusion of language
' __ � specifying phase out date
''SE
�' :
�•��
��
Aug. 1994
3. Work with MAC commissioners Staff/A�.tC Sept. 1994
who are supportive of effort to
help build consensus amongst l�ZA.0
4. I,etter to l�f WA asking for t�ieir
cooperation in comm.itting to
Year 2000 phaseout.
5.
Prepare media news releases
and information letters
explaining issue and asking for
letters andlor ca11s to MAC in
support of contractual language
Page 14
Staff
Sept. 1994
'' � A�.ir 1vToise Plan of Action
$..:;
. ._ Is�u�: . Noise Red.uc�ion �'hrough L,itigation
Goa1: I�etermine Feasibility of a Lega� Challenge to Current Air
-- Noise I�istribution
Action Steps:
Review �i story of legal �
challeng�s re�ated. to air noise
Investigate F.A.A proced.ures in
effect at tim.e of 1973 corridor
C�.eC1SlOi1 - Freed.om of Information
Act request?
,•
�-�
Staff/AR.0 Nov. 1994
�
�ie�� i�. �r � r- � - .� .� � . ,
.
.i� - rnr�-�,, �� � �r . -�
Counc�l considers recommendation Council
and determines desired course of action
Page 15
�- •r�'
�. ..
.•
. . ••
0
Issue:
Goa1:
Air Noise Plan of � .A,.ction
.Assure Installation of Sound Insulation in Schools
Af%cted. by Air Noise Exposure
Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Ynsulation
Action Steps:
1. Meet wit�h school
administrators to
� � discuss need.
2. Analyze MAC School
Noise Monitori.ng Study
3. Work with schools to
to prepare fund.ing
request for insulation
4. Approva,� of fund.ing
request for submittal
to MAC
Who
Staff
• ..� � ' ..
Staff/AIZC
Council
.
, ••
ht. ••.
Apri1 1995
1VI�1�.CiPi)I,11'T .�iZ.Pi7R.T� CO ISSIiJIiT
2���t"S 5q-ti,q Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
�? t 9� 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
m o Phone (612j 726-8100 � I'ax (612) 726-5296
-i i' "f V1
A �
O N
° F
o �.
' t c°
9ry 4/RPORty •
.
,� :� . , .�. ; �•. • •
�. • .� . • .� ; ... •
A MEETING of the Policy Advisory Committee will be held at the Generai Office of the
nneiropoiiian fairpo�t5 Corimission; i�IAS�G ROQR�! ,���0 �Eth A.�s. S�., lMli�nneapolis, Tu�sd�v
DEc'EMBER 191995 at NOON �unch will be provided for PAC votin4 membeirs and the
�nsuitant team.
Update Items:
A�ction Item
PAC Members
Dore Mead
Allen Lovejoy
Jamie Verbtugge
i.arry Lee
Jon Hohenstein
Keven Batchelder
Garol Kummer
Scott Bunin
Bob Johnson
Richatd Keinz
AGENDA
Program Update: 1992-1995 Compieted Homes
1996 Approvai Budget: 1,200 homes at $20.7M by Steve�Vecchi
FAA Boundary Biock Decision by Steve Vecchi
Homeowner Orientation Lette�: deferral restriction by Steve Vecchi
CEE Administration Changes by Tom Brown
* Project Manager Position
* Project Designers/Constnaction Coordinators
$25,000 CAP: proposed changes for larger homes by Tom Brown
Advisorv/Consuttants
Glen Orcutt - FAA
Steve Vecchi - MAC Tom Brown-MAC
Sheldon Strom - CEE
Mary Raasch - CEE
pat Goodwin, Goodwin Communications
If you cannot attend the meeting, piease notify Jean Deighton (726-8141) with the �ame of your designated aftemate.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer.
Reliever Airports: AIItLAKE • ANOKA COUNTX/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWN'1'OWN
C�
� DEC-19-95 TUE 10:2� AM CENTEP, FOP, E�EP,GY ��D EN Fnx �0, 612 725 6253 .._. P, 2 �
;_
M3P PART 950 SOUND tNSULATtON PROGRAM: CITY OF MENDOTa HEiGHTS EL4GiB�E HOLISES
i �Lm1affi 8� e�k Prlorriv Insutadk�r+ statua
-- t 2206 PiIOT KNOB ROAD i IN PROCE98 FOR i8a5 �.Y.
2 !�5 E. PERRON R0I4D 2 DEfERREO
3 235! PIIOt KNOB ROAO 2 QEFERRED
4 2359 PILOT KNOB ROAO 2 DEFERRED
5 2170 PiLOT' FWOB RQAQ 4 GOMPLE7ED
6 22Q0 PILQT KMOB ROaO d COMPLETED
7� 128Q tAKEVlEW AVE
8 1281 LAKEViEW AVE
g 128d IAI�Y�EW AVE
10 t288 IAKEVIEW AYE
91 t289 tAKEVtEW �1VE
12 9296 U1KEViEW 1lVE
43 1298 tAkEViEW AYE
94 1269 tAKEYIEW AYE
�s �soo ui�wEwavE
�e �3as w�w�wsv�
17 1387 lAKEVIEW AVE
�s 23�a ��Le�aYRoao
tg 2316 LA10E LEMAY ROAD
2p 'l298 KENflON tANE
Z1 1294 KENDON lANE
22 1288 F�NOON LANE
2g 1302 KENDaN Ul�lE
Z4 ' l3R5 KENDON LAFlE
�5 4�oe KENDON LANE
2g 1:109 I�EMOON t1�NL
27 13id KENDON U1NE
2a 1300 FURLONC� AVE
2g 1305 FURLONG AYE
30 1307 FUiiLONG AYE
�1 1309 FURlON3 AVE
32 1312 FURl.ON� AVE
33 1313 FURLONG AVE
34 f 314 PURI.ONO AVE A
35 1314 FURLONG AVE B
3g 2230 HIGHWAY S3
37 2180 HI�IiWAY 13
38 2180 HIGHWAY 93
3g 2220 HiOHWAY 13
qp 1316 YlCTORY AVE
4� 5920 VICTORYAVE
4Z 238a LAKE LEMAY ROAD
43 2370 IAKE �E.MAY ROAO
,o,c 2376 IAKE LEMAY ROAD
qg 2f 00 PILOT KNOd ROAD
.;g ?.454 U1F�E IEMKY ROAO
47 1181 ROGER8 ROAD
dg 1�89 R03ER9 ROIID
48 240t �EXINOTON AYE 80
r�} 2044 PItOT KNOB ROA�
5� 2085 VALENCOUR CIRCLE
52 20g6 VAIENCOUR CIRCLE
i�119�15 Paga 1
5 COMPCEiEU
6 GOMP�ETEQ
5 1A! PROCESS FOR t885 G.Y.
5 C�MPLETEO
5 COMPLETEQ
6 COMPLETED
5 COMPLETEU
s co►,n���Teo
5 COMPIETED
5 COMPlE7'ED
s coMp�ETEo
6 GOMPLE'fED
6 COMPIEtED
7 COt�AP1.ETED
7 COMPLETED
7 COMPtEiED
' eoMP�ez�o
7 COMPLETfD
7 CC3MPLETEO
T COMPLETED
� COMPLETED
8
8
8
8
8
s
e
8
8
e
9
8
9
9
1Q
10
i�
19
12
t2
12
14
15
16 "
16
COMPLETEd
COMPI.ETED
COMPLE'{'EO
COMPLETEO
COMPLE7Ea
CbMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPi.ETEG
CaMP�ETEO
DEFERRED
DEFERREO
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPCETED
COMRI.ETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
IN PROCE88 FOR 1896 Ci.Y.
tN PROCESS FOR 19�6 Ci.Y.
IN PROCESS FOR 1896 G.Y.
dEFERRED
QEFERRED
IN PROCESS fOR 1995 G.Y.
IN PROCESS FOR 1995 G.Y.
IN PROCESS FOR l995 G.Y,
� DE�C-19-95 TUE 10; 24 nM CEI��`EP, FOP, E�IEP,GY AI�D EN FAx �IO, 612 725 6253 ..__P, 1
Ta: Kevin Satchelder, City af Mendata Heigi'tts
Fmx #: 452-8940
Re: Eligible Houses for Part I S� Sound lnsuiation Program
Da��es �ecember ! 9, I 995
Pagesa 3, including ihis cover sheet.
,4tsached is a aomplete list of homes Pn Mendora Heights
that are eligibie far the Pa�t I 50 Sound fnsulation
Program. The cdumn on the right hantf side shaws the
Insulation Status of each home.
I subrri�tted this;list to Tom i� August for his review - h�
ok'd i� You rt�ar vrarzt to r�ew it also -!et rr� kncrw if
questions or concerns.
Thanks, Kevin.
,t `;
From tRe desk oL..
Mary Raa�ch
MaRrgar� Homeowner/Community APfattr
Ce�nter for Er+ergy ar�s �nvlronment
q01 3+#h Ave. 50.
Mirrrupoiis� MN 554�0
" (612} ?25�6'2S1
Fa�c {612j ?25�6253
DEC-19-95 TUE 10; 25 ANI CENTEP, FQP E�IERGY nI�D EI� Fnx �IO, 612 725 6253
P. 3
flASP PART 18'ra BGUND IN3ULATION PROGR/3M: CITY OF MENOOTA HEIC3HTS E�fC3t6LE HOUSES
■ •_.:�_ . . u r.-
5S
ss
67
58
�
�
69
62
83
64
65
�
07
�
@8
70
71
72
73
7d
7b
T6
?7
78
79
80
81
82
a�
m
�
86
86
87`
8�B
89
8ii TOTAI. liQUSES
� . 8f4Ca( PfiOtM 11nSuk�ii4t1 �`3it1iUlS
2250 LEXJNGTON AYE SO 17 IIV PROCE8S POR 1993 G.Y,
?258 LEX1NOtON AYE SO i� tN PROCESS FOR t99.S G.Y.
1G62 CUI.LEN AVE
�oes cuu�N avE
1U90 CULtEN AVE
1066 CULLEN AVE '
2t80 LEXINGTOtd AVE SO
7210 LEXINOTON AYE 80
22t� LEXINGTON AYE SO
7226 LEXINGTON AVE SO
2Zi4 �6XINC3TOti AVE SO
2242 LEXiNGTON AYE SO
1063 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL
t03T WA30N WH�BL TRAIL
1pB5 WAtiON WHEEL'fRAfL
940 WAGON WHEEL TRA1L
96d WACdON WHEEL TRAII
87(J WAGON WHEEL TRA�L
880 WAGON WHEELTRAIL
99p WAGON WHEEI. TRAtL
994 WAOON WHEEL TRAIL
�
234!
2569
Z36?
2371
��.394
23A2
7dfd
T.�56
z�a
�oo�Rs AVE
ROGERSAVF
ROGER8AVE
ROGERSAVE
ROC9ER8 AVE
9WAN DRNE
8WAM DRIVE
SWAN DRiYE
SWAN DRIVE
SWAN ORIVE
1021 WAOON WHEEL TRAiL
2335 SWAN ORIYE
2343 SWAN DRIYE
Z�s1 sWAN DRIVE
2357 SWAN t3RlVE
?371 SWAN QRIVE
BUMMARY: 37 GOMPCETED
7 DEFERRED
10 IN PROGESS FOR SS A,Y.
35 SCHEDUL,EO FOR 96 G.Y.
79 SCNEWJ�ED FOR 1996 G.Y.
1g SCHEOULED FOR tAAG 6.Y.
19 9GHEQt7lED FOR 1899 O.Y.
1S SCHEQt1LE� PdR 1996 O.Y.
19 SGMEDUlEO FOR 19�88 G.7.
19 SGFtEQULED FOR SBS� G.Y.
tg SGHEDULED FOR 9896 G.Y.
49 SCHEOUIED FC�R 1006 G.Y.
18 SCHEOUIEQ FOR 9886 G.Y.
19 SCHEDUIED FOR 19i9B G.Y.
18 SCHEDUl.ED FOtt ta96 t�.Y.
1� gCtiEDULED �OR l996 O.Y.
18 SCNEDULED FOR 1996 G,Y.
2G? 9CHEDULED FOR 185)B a.�'.
Zp SCHEDUI.ED POR 1996 C3.Y.
Zp SCHEDUI.ED �OR 'f906 G.Y.
Zp SCIiECULED FOR 1896 C3.Y.
2p SCHEDULED POR 7896 G.Y.
Zo SCHEDULEO FOR 1996 G�Y.
21 BCHEflt1LED FOR �896 C3.Y.
21 3CHEDULED FOR 1998 G.Y.
2� BCHEDUlEO FOf� 10� Q.Y.
21 SCHEDUi.ED FOR 1996 G.Y.
21 &CHEDU�ED FOR 1996 G.Y.
z� sc�tEou��o �o� �� c.Y.
2! SCHEOUIED FOR 1996 G.Y.
21 SCHEQULED FOR 1996 G.Y.
21 SCNEdULE� FOR 1996 G.Y.
21 SCHEOULED FClR t996 G.Y.
� SCHERULED FC)R 1996 G.Y.
� SCH£�ULED FOR 1896 G.Y.
� SCHEOUi.EO FOR 14Q6 O.Y.
Z3 SCNEOUIEG FOR 1�96 G.Y.
23 SCHEOUlEO FOR 1896 6.Y.
�,3 SCHEDUlEO FOR 19BB G.Y.
• Whiie ihis liatln� repres�+nia. to dQta, the mo�t acourats Cky anQ County data a+r�ikbk, it is i+at �eror frae. On 000aebn, th� map bs
Inoonsistenciea tn edd�eaa IisHngs (per biock} ar Ino�ompkte �ddreasea. As ats�ff icieenti}iea any eRots, MAC wiN tonwatd ootrmctbi'�
to tM FAA.
!?Jl9IB6 P� 2
DE�C-18-95 MON 2; 35 PM CENTEP, FOP, E�EP,G� A�D EN Fnx �4, 612 725 6253 P, 2
IO�ETRIDPQLITI�N �i,IRPC�RTS C�MiViiSSIt�N
,� '-�� a-•ti, Minneapolis-Saint Paul International �S.irport �
;'� 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis. MN 55450
a �•yz Phone (812) 728-8100 • Fax (B12) 728-5298
; o
i t ' "'
� . s,
_, + � � `� �
' ��000+,i � .
DeC�mbe� 5, 1885
The Honorable Gh�rles Mlertensotio
Mayor '
City of Me�dota Heighfs
1101 Victo=ia Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 5511�8-4�'t 67
De�� Msyoc Mertensotta:
In the fall of 1995, the MAC Part 150 Palicy Advisory Committee {PA►C}, Mettopoii#an
Aircraft Sound Abatement Gauncii (MASAC) and the participafing cities of Mtnneapolis,
�� Richfieid, Bioom�ngton, Eagan, and Mendota Heights requested ihat the Commission
prepa�e a recommendation to the Federai Aviation Admi�istratton (FAA} thst would grant
� Part 't 50 Sound insulation Program e�i9� �N c�ontou b undary o�f t e�appro d� 't99fi
{blocks intersected by th� outermost 65 �
Noise E�cposure Map).
After passage by the MAC Plannir�g and Envtronment Commlttee on Octaber 3, 'i995, the
Commission unanimousiy approved a recommendatlon on October 16,1995 %r Staff to
submit an officiai request for "boundary block" Part 150 Prog�am eligibiiity to the FAA.
The FederaE Avistion Administration - Airports DisVlct C?ifice concurred in writing on
November 19, 1995 that a!I homes within "bour�d�cy btocks' defined by the cuRen#iy
approved 't 996 Noise Exposure Map aee approved fot Part 150 Sound Insulatio� Program
modifications using either AirpoR Impravement Progeam {AIPj or Passenger Facility
Charges (PFC} FUNDS (sae attached}. This "boundary block" eligibility decision wilE be
valid unti! new Noise Exp�sure Maps are developed �nd approved by the FAA.
S'sncerely,
�� ��,
, �
u.'''�-�•*�'� �,;.�••' s�
� Pierson G�iev �,�.
Chairman
Thc !�teuupulitnn :�irpaPls Cummissiun is.�n afiirmatiee +tctlna employer:
� DE�C-18-95 MON 2:36 PM CEI�TEP, FOP, E�IEP,GY AI�D E�I FAX N0, 612 725 6253
� u.s. Department AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE - MIlYNTAi'O�.IS
-- of Transportation �p20 - 28th Avtnue South, #142
Fed��ai Avistian Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2706
Administratlon
Navember 29, 1995
Mr. Id'igel Finney, Depury Exccucive Director
Metropolitan Airgorts Commission
6440 - 28th Avenue Snuth
MinneapoIis, Minnesoca 55450
Dear Mr. Finney:
Eligibiiiry of "Boundary" Blocks
L � �, ( � .�.�
��.•
This is in respanse ta yaur leaer,of�Oetober 25� 1495, requesting o�r concurrence in the
eligibiliry of all homes within. "�boundary" blocks for sound insulanon using funds u�der the
Airparc Improvemertt Prograzn or Passenger Facility Charge Pr'ogram. The "baundary" blocks
aze defined as those blocks touched by the �t�ntour�f the approved Fart i��191.!_9..�,..�t�i
P. 3
Exposare Map (N.,,.m� A.�, t ��� �� 7 � j- :�,u�e.5 �+, �_ �1I'l � l�-�
��� ' /; �rac. c,d °se� �
�' u�� f,�. �j,Q" C G t1 ��d
�►� Ve concur wi t h your reqves t su bjec t to t he fo l I o w i n g: ��,r f••�. r- <, ;� C`� �' �
,�.».c, �t. �( �arg
1. This concurrance is only appticabte to chose blocks touched by the DNL 65 contour of the
most current NFM officially acctpted by FAA and does not inciude blocks associated with
the southwest end o€ Runway 4/22. {We understand the MAC is deferring any additional
noise insulation of homes aff�the southwest end of Runway 4/22 pending a resolutioa af th�
Ruaway Use System enhat�cemenss proposed as part of the Runway 4/22 extension pm,�ect.)
2. When new NEM's for the MinneapoIis-St. Paul Int�rnacional Aitport are develapod and
apprvved by the FAA the bIoc�s touched by rhe DNL 65 contaur of the 1996 NEM will no
longer be eligible uniess touched or encompassed by the DNL 65 concaur of che new NEM.
3. The Metropolitan Airpons Cotnsnission's current praccice to prioritize homes for sound
insulation within each communiry based on degree of aircraft naise impact wi11 continue co bc
followed.
Dur concurrence is based an ihe policy expressed in Paragragh 710.b. of FAA Ordcr 5100.3$A,
Airport Impravement Program (AIP) Handbook, which allows "a few otherwise ineligible pazcels
contiguous to the project area" to be considered eligible "if necessary to achieve equity in rhe
neighborhood."
Ff you have any questions coneerning this pleese do not hesitate to calt.
Sincerely�
� , � ��� � . 7�
Robert A. Huber
Assisrant Manager
• � ,
Date: December 5, 1995
To: Chairman Grieve and all Commissioners
From: Nigel Finney, �eput�/ Executave Die�ector Pianning d� Envir�onment
Subject: FAA Patt 150 "Boundary Block" Eligibility Decision
In the fall of 1995, the MAC Part 150 Polecy Advisory Comm"rttee (P�4Cj, Metropolitan Aircraft
Sound Abatement Councel (MASAC), and the particip�ting �iiies of Il�inneapolis, Richfield,
Bioomington, Eagan, and Nienilota Heights requested that ihe Commission pnepare a
r�ecommenda4on to tfie Federai Sviation Administration (FAAj that would grant Pavt 150 Sound
Insulation Program eligibil'rty to ail homes within 'boundary blocks" `blocks entersected by 1H�e
outermost 65 LDN contour boundary of the approve�! 1996 Noise Exposur�e Map):
Af%r passage by the NiAC Pianning and Environment Committee on October 3, 'l995, the
Commission unanimously appr�aived a r�ecommendation oo October 16,1995 for Stafi to su6mit
an official nequest for "bouredary block" Part 150 Pnogram eligibility to the FAA.
The Federal Aviation Adminishation -Airports District Office concu�r�ed in writing on November
19,1995, that all homes within 'boundary blocks" defined by tfie cumeMiy approved 1996 Noise
Exposune Map aroe appr+oved for P�rt 150 Sound Insulation Pr�ogram modifications using e"rther
A6rport Impcovement Program (AIP) or Passenger Facilify Changes (P�C) funds [see attached].
This "boundary block" eligibil'rty decision will be valid u�il new Noise Euposue+e Nlaps are
developed and approved by tfie FAA.
SJVfjd
Part 150
�
U.S. Department AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE - MINN]EAPOLIS
� of Transportation 6020 - 28th Avenue South, #102
-- Federai Aviation Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2706
Administration November 29, 1995
Mr. Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota SS450
Eligibility of "Boundary" Blocks
Dear Mr. Finney:
This is in response to your letter of October 25, 1995, requesting our concurrence in the
eligibility of all homes within "boundary" blocks for sound insulation using funds under the
Airport Improvement Program or, Passenger Facility Charge Program. The "boundary" blocks
are defined as those blocks touched by the DNL 65 contour of the approved Part 150 1996 Noise
Exposure Map (NEM).
We concur with your request subject to the following:
l. This cancurrence is only applicable to those blocks touched by the DNL 65 contour of the
, j most current NEM officially accepted by FAA and does not include blocks associated with
- the southwest end of Runway 4/22. (We understand the 1VIAC is deferring any additional
noise insulation of homes off the southwest end of Runway 4I22 pending a resolution of the
Runway Use System enhancements proposed as part of the Runway 4/22 extension project.)
2. When new NE1Vf's for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are developed and
approved by the FAA the blocks touched by the DNL 65 contour of the 1996 NEM will no
longer be eligible unless touched or encompassed by the DNL 65 contour of the new NEM.
3. The Metropolitan Airports Commission's current ,practice to prioritize homes for sound
insulation within each community based on degree of aircraft noise impact will continue to be
followed.
Our concurrence is based on the policy expressed in Paragraph 710.b. of FAA Order 5100.38A,
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook, which allows "a few otherwise ineligible parcels
contiguous to the project area" to be considered eligible "if necessary to achieve equity in the
neighborhood. "
If you have any questions concerning this please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
��'�� A . ��'�-,.
;�
- Robert A. Huber
Assistant Manager
� ��
( �
�
ss
. • • .
. . . .
. •
• • • •
.
• • • •
• s • •
�
.•
r
r . • • ■
. � � . .
•• � �►
• • • � �
� • � � �►
• • • � �r
• • • � �r
�
.
•
�
• �;;t
u
�""��'
�;�4'�i
���
y. ..�
F',���
'
�' �� ' ��. w::
. , �` - .. ,. i:
�a �, �. . ..:
_
a�
� �-� � `�
� - . • � ��� - � R� .,
- ... � ,��`�'�� ' , � � � ° : �:��-..
.. �rr,Mi ; _-, _ � � : �.
, � � � � �� ��
r
— — _ ��,°��` ���
�' ����-: ,�� �6, =
_ �,�, �-,��`��.
� � z� ��;.
��� �: � ��� ,
�`� �; � t ��``
����, �.���
� ���;� 4�
� "x ��
� � 1 � � €; �d�x `,
� II�II �F
'
;
r �� �'�r;
�._. _
�
� �:
• � �� .. ��:
z_,u;
� � � � � _� ;;
� ; � ' ` '
� � ' � ,,� '�.
P ,t�_�.�•tl � ��' '•i�
. :: �
�i
C
� '
�. �, ,�. .�' i. �.
��� r� �: �� �' �.
� � �� � �� �..
��" r' �,� ��. ��� +��
�` �`. r, �. �� '�
�. �� �,. �. ��.. � .
.... ; ..... : . . . . � �......
'�,1 • • • �
r • � � �
• •� � �
� � • • �
1 ' ' ' ' "
��
,�
:�
# � .��
• • •
• • •
�-�
�
� �
�
�� � �
� � .
^ � �
�� � ��
� � �. o
� � �F �, 'S�
� Q �" o �
r-+
� � � � O
�V P9 Q b ��/1 N �
� � � �3 0 �
� � v�i Q� � O
� ��i .� 0 3 _
; � b � � �
Fy � � � � �
M�1 V! v�i � � �
�F-�.� � � �_
� F�+ • • , � � � CU
- O � � � '�:
� � � � � . , -� � � �
0
`V � . � O � � - �
.� s-, � ..,
�~ U � � U . .
: . � cd � .
� ., � � ..N-r .
� U
' � � � �m "C� � ' ,
�� � ��
��- �� >�
� . �� ����
� � .� ..., � �
.�
� � ��
�r� ~�
v �
� � � A� �•�. .
� p � t�j 0 �
� � �
� ,'� � � � �° �
� C7 � J
. � � '
�
. � � : . -.
, � , - . .
�
M
O� 00 d°
M O 01
N M O^
�
0 0 �
� �-
o [` M
.^� •
~ � ~ � I'I
~ I
:.° M • •-�-� p
�
� .
� '
� ����
� �000
xxxx
� - .. M N � 0�0 '
. ,
� •
I
,oN,. o`h, o�. rn I
°�o��°� �
�
� �
d' ,
� . �
.e o �
ti
�
d' a
o r
o I
N v�i" '"�, �
� �
�� � ��� �� �.�� � ��
�� � _� � �
0
z . ��
_.
o . o o . �
.�
U z ?' d '�
ra a� o �' F �
� F .v . � � i
� �
O z
x a � �
w
_ z
H , �
w a v � -' � i
a � � �
� W_� � i
�
� �
o�_ � ��x �
-. , ,. ,
, ;
. ;
_, .
�
.. � , . . . , ,
. - . : _ ;
� . . ,.
... i
C
�
f )
z
a H w
RCHZ
u � aq
�i
o z A
O
U
z
0
W H
O H A '
H � H �I
H cHn PWi li
� p �
U �
i
z �
o �
�
�
� o �
H i
i
a a �
�
a �
~z
i!� H
H W
� �.
U
Ch �
1
H 1
� W �
a w� �
w w �
O Q 1
�x�
� �
i
� , i
�
W �
a �
o �
H � �
Ri A �
�
M O 00 N � t`� r1 G1 O O O d�
N N e-I N ri rl N e-1 t+) ; N N N
� � � � N U O N t�d N rt! R+
� h h � cn O Z A h w � �
N �
aD t0 M CO Lf1 t� d� Ol l0 f+r1 e-i
N �'+ � � � � U O � � AG) tO
� � h h � �n o z A h w �
N
M QO Lfl W �
00 t0 J-1 L� Ol lf� ('7 s-i
� �. � � � a�'i .0 o v � ..� s�
a � � � �c cn � z a� � a� �
� � � h � � o � A h w �
1 I � I i� � N I ('r► I 1 1 1
lfr 111 N [`� N N l0 N CO LI'I M L�
N N N N N N N N N
.A � � �. � �� rn w � � v �
w � � � h h � c�n o z A h
� � �
� � � o � � � � � � � o
N• r-I rl N rl N r-I r-1 N
..ti �1 3�1 �r G' r� l71 R� .0 '� U G'
f� � � � h ►7 � U�1 O � Q h
l0 !.f) N L� � N l0 m � Lf1 M l�
.i2 �-I �-I �✓'� G'r r-I i71 Q1 J-) �' Ci %i
f+ � � � h h � � O Z A h
e-{ 00 �D �p t0 t0 tC e-I O O O O
CO OD O O O O O O O O O O
t-I I-i l"� t'i �-1 �"� e"� e-i r'I f"i
CO c31 O �-I N c'7 cN i.fl l4 L� 00 Ol
Ol Ol O O O C7 O O O O O O
O O r-i �-1 c-i r-I c-i �-I c-I c-1 �-I s-I
v `. �..i .1 v
L� d{ M l� tfl N C`� di o� lD c�1 00
� � � � � � � � � � � �
� N c� W t� � � � N U O �
h Ga � FC � h h +� cn O Z A
(
Ca
o�
o=
w W c�i s 1 : t 'n
� = c+�
Q
Q cc I { 1 1 ta
w
r
0
_ �
o V o � � o
� ! { �
Z �
= p� d' O O N t�
� p� f N N � O
P T r I(i
J �
W
F�- � O O O O N N
o(�, N N N N � M
�- = e= e= v- � Il1
� .� � � � � �
� CO C3 O O � N
V � � � � � �
J
_Q
W . � � � � O O
} e- e- e- e- (y. F-
C
�.
E )
�
�
•
�
•
-
•
�
�
.
�
•
�
•
•
•
•
.
�
� j
❑
�
�
•
�
�
•
•
�
.
+1
� �
•
••
•
ir '
, .
•
� '
• •
�
�
•
.1
�
•
•
•
CI
•1
�
.
•
•
�
.
•
�
•
•
�
�
• •
• '
•
�
•
• • �
�
• � �
•1
.
� � .
•
• •
. � •
�
f� �
•
•
•
•
.�
�
•
�
.�
.
• •
•
�
� �
.
•
�
�
� •1
�
.
i .
•
•
�;
•
.
•
�
■
�
�
�
•
•
�
•
�
•
•
�
•
.
.
❑
�
�, �
�
�
� �
�
� � �
• � � ir
�r
.
•
•
. _...
� �
• ` �
• • �
•1
• �
.� '
. •
�
. ��
� .
�
• , �
.
•
. •
�
' •
' , •
� . �
•
•
.
i �
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
�L/
�
�
�
0
�
�
u
�
1
• , •
• .
�
�
•
�
�
•
�
• �
•
�
�
•
�
• ,
1 �
� •
�
•
�
•
�
C!
/ � ;. �` � � .
.
- -'- - - -'- - - _ - - - - - '- �- - - = - - - - -' -
—
. �'i1 1 �
. ��� , � '11 1 i
� , ,' � . i
.
�PQ+L�s g,G��,J.
2.2 't 9G
� C
2
� j� , j� O
h
OA �
O��T t � Gp�t`
�NAI RPOl�S
r � � • � �
(� � �, Economics Research Associates
��
� ' / 1 Consulting Planners
� 1 : � Landscape Arclutects
�,,,.a
C�
C
� P • � • •
�
•;•
� - �..
� - •._
• . • •.
• •- . � • �.,
. �.
• - • ' - .► �
•.
ASSUmp$iOnS:
■ Enplanements are the direct link to
impacts
- Origin/Destination
- Connecting
- International
■ Airline productivity will improve; jobs
per enplanement will decline
■ The ratios of jobs to enplanements
differ based on the type of �
enplanement
■ Enplanements at Expanded MSP and
New Airport are exactly the same;
No Growth has a lower number
. .
'• •;
a Possible loss of 10,000 jobs
(non-airport)
— Direct jobs and salaries
($350-$580 million)
- Indirect jobs and salaries
(11,800 jobs)
- Sales tax ($32-$53 million)
- Income tax ($39-$65 million)
■ Possible loss of 15% of operations/jobs
- Related direct, indirect and sales tax
loss -
- Possible visitor impact
- Jet fuel tax decline
(continued)
RESULTS:
Using indusfiry rules of thumb and
EIS forecasfis, MSP Expansion and
New Airport have same direct
impacts (jobs and income) -
If NW Airlines cuts scheduled
flights and thus airport
operations/jobs, the New Airport
has lower direct impacts than both
alternatives
No Action alternative has declining
economic impacts after 2015
Direct Wages
(�)
Purchases:
Goods/Services
Jobs and
Wages
Continued Expenditures
and Jobs/Wages
Assumptions:
■ Basis: Income leveis generated for
airport scenarios
■ Multipliers (Input-Output) for State of
Minnesota (Bureau of Economic
Analysis)
— Jobs
— Wages
Conclusions:
■ Expanded MSP and New Airport have
equal jobs/wages (using industry rules
of thumb and EIS forecasts)
■ With NW Airlines schedule/jobs
cutback, the New Airport has lesser
impacts than other options
■ After 2015, indirect impacts of No
Action begin to decline
• ' �
'' � •
(continued)
RESULT:
■ MSP Expansion:
- 32,000 direct construction jobs
- $1.4 billion direct wages
- 46,000 indirect jobs
- $1.7 billion indirect wages
- $80 million tax on materials
■ New Airport:
- 53,000 direct construction jobs
- $2.2 billion direct wages
- 75,000 indirect jobs
- $2.8 billion indirect wages
- $130 million tax on materials
Note: Not all jobs and related
wages will accrue to State/region
, � � � �.
. �
■ Assumptions:
- MSP expansion cost =
� $2.8 billion
- New Airport construction cost =
�4.5 billion
- Wages equal approximately 50% of
total cost
■ Approach:
- Determine jobs
- Salary levels set at metropolitan
average for construction
-Apply BEA RIMS 11 multiplier
■ Assumptions:
- Impacts created by out-of-region
deplanin4 passengers �
- Connecting passengers do not
create impacts
-�sitors as a percentage of.
deplanements:
• 45% of Origin/Destination
• 60% of International
■ Spending Categories:
(hotel, restaurant, retail,
entertainment, transportation)
- Domestic travelers spend $659 per
visit
- International travelers spend $989
per visit
C�
C�
(continued)
■ Impacts:
- Direct spending, related jobs
- Multiplier impacts using model
(RIMS il)
■ Conclusions:
(all Alternatives are the same*)
-15,000 new direct jobs created
-$117 million incr men in wages
(direct)
- 6,000 new indirecfi jobs created
-$117 million increment in wages
(indirect)
* If NW Airlines cuts back so that
origin/destination travelers diminish
at New Airport, impacts of this
Alternative will diminish
(continued)
■ Conclusions (Year 2020)
MSP and New Airport*:
- Income Taxes:
• Direct Wage Tax = $23 million
o Indirect Wage Tax =$18.8 million
• Visitor-related (Direct Wages) _
$24 million
• Visitor-related (Indirect Wages) _
$24 million
- Sales Tax:
• Visitor-related = $194 million
• Jobs-related = $73 million
• Jet Fuel = $2 million
�� * New Airport shifts down with 15%
������-�i decline of NW Airlines
� ' � �
■ Assumptions:
- MSP Expansion/New Airport create
different property tax
- Wages and related benefits are the
same for MSP Expansion and New
Airport �
- Positive impacts result from visitor
spending
- Taxes
• Sales tax at 6.5%
• Car rental tax at 12%
• Property taxes vary; average rate
a� 6%
(continued)
■ Conclusions (Year 2020)
MSP and New Airport*:
- Property Tax:
• Induced (MSP) _ $21.6 million
• Induced (New) _ $16.3 million
- Construction Income Tax
• Same ratio as direct/indirect job
comparisons
* New Airport shifts down with 15%
decline of NW Airlines
0
■ Definition: development thafi
results from business related
to the airport.
- Visitors
- Shipping
- Business Travelers
■ Types of Impacts Evaluated:
- Visitor Accommodations
- Industrial Space
- Office Space
I tV D C D 1 M P,AGiS
(continued)
■ Identify applications and tailor to
Twin Cities region
■ Distribute induced development
around MSP and New Airport
- Note: Met Council study forecast induced
development at new airport
■ Translate visitor statistics/
accommodation into induced
development
■ Conclusions:
- MSP Expansion and No Action:
• O�ce = 400,000 SF
• Industrial = 1,000,000 SF
• Hotel Rooms = 2,500 rooms
'����f�eD �oilY■ �V��
(continued)
APPROACH:
■ Profile development and impacts
around other airparts
■ Characterize development trends,
patterns and catalysts
-MSP �
- New Airport Site
■ Estimate airport induced
development in other cities
- Square feet
- Type
- Location
INDUCED DEVELOPMENT
NEw A'RPORT ALTERN�TevE
Dakota County: �
Office 1,683,000 SF 6,730 employees
Manufacturing 533,000 SF 1,185 employees
Retail 400,000 SF 1,000 employees
Lodging 1,540 rooms 770 employees
Services — 485 employees
Residential 3,790 units — employees
TOTAL
Residential
Residential
Office
Manufaduring
Lodging
seNices
TOTAL
Washington County:
1,680 unfts
Goodhue County:
490 units
Wisconstn:
170,000 SF
53,000 SF
150 rooms
10,170 employees
— employees
— employees
700 employees
150 employees
100 employees
50 employees
970 employees
�
C
_ _ �
AGEI�TDA
REGULAR MEETING �
EAGAN AIRP'ORT ItELATIONS COMMISSION
EAGElN, 11�Ii�1NESOTt�
COIVdNiU]KI'� ItOO1Vi
EAGAN CI'!'i� HA.�.Y.
d�n��ay 99 1996
7s00 P.M.
,� r � ��� � � �•.
� ,� , �, . �, lJ��
1/ � . k1 � .1' : � '):
OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. I.egislative Brieffng
B. Dual �'rack Planning Process EIS Comments
VI. C(�MMITTEE REPORTS
VII. S�AFF REPORT �
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
B. Runway 4/22 Extension ,
C. Sonna Insulation Program
D. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition
VIII.
0
I�►! �;�i• y►/
FUT'iJRE AGENDA
� �lQ����
-. 9g�.,,
.,
.,,
.,, �
.,
��.
.,,
,,
.`
�•.
X. NEXT CONiMISSION MEET'ING - 7:00 p.m. Tuesciay, February 13,1996
CUIII�tEN'� OPEYtA77'IONS CONal1�d - To be determined
LONG TERM PLANI�TING COM1Vi - To be determined
NEX'� MASAC MEE�NG - 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Jaainary 23,1l995
xI. ADJOURNMENT
?'he City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs,
service� activitie� facilities m�d employment without riegard to rac� color, cnee� religion,
national origin, se,� disability, ag� marital status, s�ual orientatior� or stahrs with regard to
public assistanc� Au�iliary aids for persons wiih disabilities will be provided upon advance
notice of at least 96 hour� If a notice of less than 96 hours is receivec� the City of Eagan will
attempt to provide such aid
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN AIRPORT RELA1'IONS COMIVIISSION
EAGAIV, MIrINESOTA
coMa�mrnva�r� RooM
EAGAN CITY HALL
Deseanbea� l�y 1995
7:00 P.M.
�� � , ��, � � �.
II. APPROVAL OF MIrIUTES
� � � ': � : .i : 't �.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Eagan-Mendota gIeights Corridor
V. NFW BUSINESS
A. 1996 Part 150 Program Participation
�I. COMMITI'EE REPORTS
f � YII. STAFF ItEPORT .
A. Runway 4/22 Extension
B. MASAC Meeting of December 5, 1995
C. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition
VIII. INFORMATIVE
X, NEXT COMMISSION t�IE]ETING • 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, �anuary 9,1995
C'iJR]ItENT OI'ERATIONS COMM - 5:30 p.m. Nianday, Iiecember 18, 1995
LONG TERM PLAI�TING COMM - 7:00 p.m. �'hursday, December 21,1995
1V�XT MASA� MEETING • 7:30 p.m: Tuesday, January 23,1995
The City of Eagan is committed' to the policy that all personr have equal access to its programs,
service� activities, facilities and employment without r+egard to rac� color, creec� religion,
national origin, se� disability, ag� marital status, s�.ual orientation, or status with regard to �
public assistanc� Auziliary aids for persons with disabilides will be provided upon advance
notice of at least 96 hours If a notice of less than 96 hours is receivea� the City of Eagan will
attempt to provide such aid
r �
M�R.OPi>I.I"I'.� .� (JI�.�'S Ct� I�SIO�T
r�PPtiS S4j�,q Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport.
�r t°� 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
m o Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
it
71 � t N
� N
O
OC �y,
9�'41RPOR�y GO
December 21, 1995
Tom Lawell, Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
RE: Assessment of Environmental Effects of MAC's 7-year Capital Improvement Plan for:
Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport
Anoka County-Blaine Airport
Dear Mr. Lawell:
On December 20, 1995, the Metropolitan Airports Commission concluded that based upon the
Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) prepazed for the � year Capital Improvement Program
for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and Anoka County-Blaine Airport, the potential for
adverse effects as a result of the projects has been adequately ident�ed. Furthermore, the effects of
the projects have been addressed by other projects which have been included in the CIP and which
will serve as appropriate mitigarive measures.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission held a public hearing ori November 8, 1995, regarding these
) projects. There were no commentors at the hearing. The public record� remained open until 5:00 pm
on Friday, November 24, 1995. Two letters were received to the record.
A copy of the "Hearing Officers Report" along with the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and
Recommendation" and copies of the comment letters and the responses which are are included in
Appendix A to the Hearing Officer's report are available upon request from Mazk Ryan, Airport
Planner, (726-8129).
The Commission recommendation was that no further environmental review is warranted at this time.
Sincerely,
, `
� .� � � �;�� ��� , �.� ,��, f,�� ��
;� �C��'
Jeffrey W. Hamiel
Executive Director
NOTE: A copy of this letter and the"Hearing Off'icer's Report" have been sent to the EQB
mailing list and other interested parties.
aceeeqb2.dec
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer.
Reliever tlirports: AII2I.AKE • ANOKA COUNTY/HLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING•CLOUD • LAKE ELMO � SAIN'P PAUL DOWNTOWN
� 1 1 1,� C i, :,
January 5, 1996
To: Airport Relations Commission
From: Kevin Batchelder, Interim City Ad�� �is�tor
Subject: Discuss MAC Dua1 Track Planning Process
DI5CUSSION
On December 19., 1995, Nigel Finney, of MAC, provided a presenta.tion to our City
Council regazdi.ng the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that had been prepared by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Metropolitan Council. Several members of
the Airport Relations Commission attended this meeting for the presentation.
At this presentation, Mr. Finney stated that the MAC was proceeding with the Dua1
Tra.ck Study according to the original schedule for a July 1, 1996 recommendation to the
Legislature. However, a few da.ys later the MA.C, under pressure from Governor Arne
Carlson, moved their decision date up to March, 1996, which is only one month after the
comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Sta.tement. (Please see attached
newsletter articles.)
During his presentation, Mr. Finney highlighted the analysis that has been performed
on both tracks for dela.ys and costs, noise impacts, ground access, financial issues, noise
contours, and en�ironmental impacts. City Council expressed concerns about:
1. Air Noise Mitigation analysis only includes sound insulation costs. Council's concern
is also that the LDN 65 contour, on which sound insulation areas are determined, is not
an accurate footprint of noise impact. The LDN 65 contour's inadequacy has been
demonstrated by ANOMS reports which record extremely high levels of noise
disruption outside the LDN 65 contour. Council feels this is a glaring deficiency.
2. Council is concerned that there was no analysis on tax base impact and the potential
depression of market values for MSP neighbors.
3. Council is concerned that the size of MSP (approx. 3,000 acres) is insufficient for any
auport expansion, that total capacity has not been accurately determined, and that
expansion will have to be considered again in year 2020 given the projections in
operations. The size of MSP raises many concerns about parking adequacy, taxiway
) ca.pacity, ground delays and its ability to compete as a"world cla.ss" airport.
4. Council's primary concern is the potential for a north parallel runway. Mr. Finney
stated that a north parallel runway is not in the recommenclation for the approved MSP +�
development plan, however, he also sta.ted that there is no ironclad guarantee that there
will never be a north para11e1 runway.
5. Council feels the noise mitigation is grossly underestimated for the MSP expansion plan
because it rela.tes only to sound insula.tion. In particular, the economic impact of noise
is not considered.
-� I'i; ,•. „'�
There aze two aspects of the Dual Track Planning Process that the Commission should
discuss. First, the Commission should discuss the preparation of a response to the draft
Environmental Impact Statement.. Second, the Commission should discuss the Dua1 Track
Planning Process and our position on this issue.
l. Draft Environmental Im�act Sta.tement
The comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Sta.tement is open ua�til
February 13, 1996: The Commission will not meet again after tonight until. that same date.
Copies of the Executive Summary are again attached to this memo for your review. The
Commission should discuss Council's concerns and provide direction to staff on preparing a
response.
C
2. Position on the Dual Track P]anning Stud,�
Mendota Heights has not yet taken a position on the Dual Track Study as we had
intended to wait until all the study had been completed so that a fully informed decision could
be made. Some communities have adopted a stance on the Dual Track. (Please refer to
atta.ched articles.)
Ma.yor Mertensotto has spoken to me regarding his opinion on the position that
Mendota: Heights should take on the Dua1 Track Study. It should be noted that the City
Council, as a whole, has not discussed a"Mendota. Heights Position." The mayor's position is
as follows:
1. There should be no further expansion of the existing MSP International Auport.
2. If there is to be any expansion of MSP, any new runway should be parallel to Runway
4-22, due to runway efficiencies realized with parallel runways.
3. The MAC should land bank up to 15,000 acres'for a new airport and it should be on
the north side of the metropolitan area. If Dakota County does not want the new
airport, they should not be forced to have it.
,_ _ (
4. If there is to be an expanded 1VYSP International Airport, the Part 150 Program will
� have to be extensively eacpanded outside the e�sting LDN 65 and in the amount of
money allocated for this program.
ACTION REQIfIRED
The Commission should discuss the above listed considerations and provide appropriate
direction to staff.
Attachments: Mi.nutes excerpts from previous discussions regarding the Dua1 Track Study
andlor MSP expansion/relocation.
�
spending taxpayer dollars in support of lobbying costs for a narrowly
� focused organization, (SOAR). This letter informs the Commission that (
SOAR has never met with representatives of Mendota Heights to discuss
IViendota Heights' objectivesa The letter aiso informs the Commission that
_ Mendota Heights' does not believe that SOAR represents the City's interests
in the Duai Track debate and our noise mitigation concerns.
The Commission discussed a draft letter dated October 19, 1995 from the
NDCARC to Dakota County Commissioners which informs the Commission
that the NDCARC acknowledges the County Board's position to formally
oppose the relocation of MSP to southern Dakota County and that the
County has pledged to support the efforts of northern Dakota County cities
in their continuing efforts in battling against aircraft noise.
:,
This letter specifically discusses the NDCARC's position that they are not
comfortable being represented by SOAR in matters related to overall noise
mitigation concerns, and that the northern Dakota County interests will
suffer under such an arrangement since the SOAR organization has as its
primary emphasis the prevention of airport relocation, not the reduction of
air noise over the northern part of the County.
The Commission discussed two options the NDCARC suggests that the
County Board review. First, the County could decide not to fund SOAR,
thereby leaving all parties on their own to lobby their respective positions. (/
In the alternative, the County could choose to pledge an equal amount of
moniey fio both efforts, allowing SOAR to more clearly focus on its relocation
opposition efforts, and the NDCARC to focus more clearly on its noise
mitigation efforts.
The Commission was of the consensus that NDCARC should send a letter to
the County Board on this important issue. It was noted that the City of
Mentiota Heights cannot sign this specific letter unless it is consistent with
the October 11, 1995 letter sent by IVlayor Mertensotto.
. • .
• r .- • •- ..
Administrator Lawell explained that Mr. John Foggia will be at the Mendota
Heights City Hall on Wednesday, October 25, 1995 to give a presentation
on GPS. The Commission acknowledged that members from the NDCARC
have been invited as well as Councilmembers from Mendota Heights. It was
noted that the entire Airport Relations Commission should be in attendance
for this presentation.
5 �
��.���4---
difference in noise on the eastern edge of the Eagan.
The Commission discussed requesting from the MASAC Operations
Committee a special report comparing huskitted and non huskitted aircraft
flight paths over the City of Mendota Heights. Administrator Lawell stated
that he would inquire with the Committee.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the South Metro Airport Action
Council letter dated August 17, 1995. �
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the NWA l.etter to Inver Grove
Heights dated August 4, 1995. Chair Beaty informed the Commission that
the NDCARC �will continue to send correspondence to the attention of Mr.
Salmen at NWA. ,
The Commission acknowiedged receipt of the Metropolitan Airports
Commission 1994 Report to the Public.
DISCUSS DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLAN1111NG STA'fUS AND
STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVEI.Y PARTICIPATING IN
THE DECISION iV1AKIIVG PROCESS
i j Administrator Lawell explained that the Commission has been discussing the
status of the Dual Track Airport Planning process and the fast approaching
deadlines which will decide this important issue. .
Lawell explained that Mendota Heights' position is to not give an opinion on
the Dual Track process until the result of the study are fully known.
Lawell summarized that Dakota County Commissioner Bataglia had informed
the Cities of Mendota Heights, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights and Sunfish �ake
that �n organized group known as SOAR would be making a presentation to
the Dakota County Board of Commissioners on the status of their efforts to
keep the new airport out of southern Dakota County. Lawell explained that
SOAR's presentation concluded by having the County Commissioner who
represents the Hastings area present a resolution which would formally
declare that Dakota County is opposed to a new airport and the very idea of
land banking for the future. �awell explained that representatives from the
northern Dakota County cities were able to convince the other
commissioners that this topic requires further discussion prior to the County
taking a formal position.
Lawell explained that this matter was tabled unit the September 26th
�
Dakota County Physical Development Committee meeting. He stated that
the Commission should spend time discussing the City's position before �
appearing before the County Board on September 26th.
Wi#h respecfi to long term lobbying efforts, Chair Beaty stated that the
Commission should consider taking a position on whether the airport should
stay or be moved. He stated that Mendota Heights' real frustration is the
air noise issue. Beafiy suggested that the City consider being in favor of
moving the airport unless specific terms are met such as narrowing the
existing corridor and equitable distribution noise.
The Commission discussed the County's concern for selective land banking
and commercial land banking.
Commissioner Surrisi inquired if the City is aware of the community's
opinion on whether the airport should stay or be rnoved. She stated that a
number of Mendota Heights residents have moved to this community due to
the proximity of the airport. Commissioner Beaty stated that a survey could
be conducted but that he is concerned about uninformed opinions and that
the community needs to be educated more about the air noise problem.
Administrator Lawell explained that the City has conducted surveys in the
past on other non-airport related topics. Commissioners Surrisi and Olsen
agreed that a survey may prove usefuL �-
Chair Beaty stated that if the airport stays in place, we need to know how
� the community of Mendota Heights be protected from air noise.
Administrator Lawell reviewed biographical information on key legislator.s
who are involved in transportation matters. Specifically, legislators who are
involved on the House Transportation and Transit Committee, the Senate
Transportation and Public Transit Committee and the Senate Transportation
and Public Transit Finance Division Committee. Chair Beaty noted that there
are several out state coms»ittee members. The Commission discussed the
possibility of hiring a professional lobbyist. Chair Beaty suggested that the
City Council consider pursuing a professional lobbyisfi who specializes in
transportation issues. Commissioner Olsen suggested that the NDCARC
should become involved and should be the organization to pursue a
professional lobbyist. He stated that a common position amongst the Cities
makes for a better stand. Commissioner Surrisi concurred. Chair Beaty
sfiated that the Cities of Sunfish Lake and Inver Grove Neights may be close
to Mendota Heights' stand on moving the airport.
The Commission suggested that if the airport stays, then the following
;.;:�>.
.: s:; . 4 �
should occur:
1. Shrink corridor as new technology permits.
2. Equitabie distribution of noise
3. NAPD standards, better use of Stage ill aircraft
4. Nighttime standards
5. Define corridor boundaries and implement fines for noise violation
6. Move general aircraft to reliever airport
7. Not consfiruct third parallel runway until 2015
Commissioner Surrisi wondered if the MAC is of the opinion that the airport
will never be moved. She also stated that some people believe that in the
future, people will be traveling less due to increased technology.
p
Commissioner Surrisi stated that the airport wii! probably have to be moved
and that if thafi airport does stay, then we will have to live with it. She
stated thafi she is convinced that the IVIAC cannot meet our conditions.
Chair Beaty stated that the City should try its best to require that these
conditions be met and that the media should be informed.
The Commission discussed that by modifying the corridor departure
procedures, overflights would be limited over populated areas.
The Commission discussed including other surrounding� City interests and
not just focusing on Mendota Heights interests.
In response to a request from the Commission, Administrator L.awell stated
he would get a progress report on the mediation process and expenses from
Metropolitan Council staff member Nacho Dias.
The Commission discussed how the City needs to be more assertive in
dealing v�ith the inequitable distribution of noise and that the City needs to
be more specific in letting the MAC know that Mendota Heights is receiving
the brunt of the air noise.
The Commission discussed better use of the corridor during non peak hours.
Chair Beaty suggested that non peak hours be defined as 10:30 p.m. to
6:00 a.m. The Commission discussed day time operations and how Chair
Beaty's suggestion would not include these operations. Commissioner
Surrisi suggested that the corridor could best be defined and used when
there is no potential conflict.
Commissioner Surrisi was excused at 10:28 o'clock P. M.
�".
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSIOIV tVI1NUTES
JUNE 14, 1995
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was
held on Wednesday, June 14, 1995, in the City Hali Large Conference Room,
1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 o'clock P.M. The
following members were presenfi: Beaty, Fitzer, Olsen, Stein and Surrisi.
Commissioners Leuman and Olin were excused. Also present were City
Administrator Tom Lawell ar�d Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser.
. � y , .�. � , �
� . � , . �, . � � �
Administrator Laweli introduced Mr. John Richter and Mr. Henry Snyder,
proponents of relocating either all or part of MSP to a location in Dakota
County. �
Mr. Snyder explained that the communities south of the river have the idea (
that by relocating the airport, it automatically means more noise in their
communities. He stated that this is not the case and that it will depend
upon the layout of the runway system, �
Mr. Snyder discussed his Strategic Vision of moving the airport. He stated
that he is concerned about the economics of the Twin Cities area. Mr.
Snyder stated that the Twin Cities is in a global economy. He explained
that global businesses require world class air service. He stated that high
tech global businesses also need around the clock air cargo capabilities. He
stated this is not possible at MSP. Snyder stated that global business needs
to be able to use the full range of today's biggest intercontinental planes for
non-stop service which are not possible now because MSP's runways are
too short.
Mr. Snyder explained that since the opening of Atlanta's Hartsfield
International Airport, the state of Georgia has attracted over 1400
international businesses who brought with them over a hundred thousand
new jobs. Mr. Snyder stated that Burlington Northern, a lifelong Twin Cities
business, moved to Fort Worth, Texas because it needed a centrally located
city with excellent air service. He cited several other companies who
1 ��
relocated because better air service was needed.
Mr. Snyder explained that the Twin Cities are just as close to worid markets
as Atlanta or Dalias-Ft. Worth.
Mr. Snyder explained that over the four years ending in 1993, operations at
MSP were up five percent per year and passenger IoacO was up six percen�
per year. Mr. Snyder reviewed statistics regarding MSP activity from 1986
through 1993. Mr. Snyder stated that the Metropolitan Airports
Commission believes that the airport will need to be expanded. He
explained that whatever construction is required, labor and materials costs
are almost identical anywhere in the area. He explained that by adding
anather runway at tVISP will not solve the capacity problem. He explained
thafi because the site �s so small (3,000 acres - the second smallest air field
in the countryj the location of a new runway is such that we have to
essentially write off the terminal and parking that is there, build new
facilities on the northwest side of the property, and then build a new road
netwo�k to get in and out.
Mr. Snyder explained that expansion at MSP will cost, conservatively,
another $2 billion to tear down hundreds of homes, insulate thousands of
others against a portion of the noise, tear down four major hotels and
remove all that tax revenue from the tax rolls.
Mr. Snyder explained that with a new airport in Rosemount, with six
runways in an L configuration, the total number of impacted residents will
be 2,200, as compared to a quarter of a million should MSP be expanded.
Mr. Richter stated that the City of Atlanta owns the Atlanta airport and that
the City of Atlanta receives minimal air noise as most of the growth has
occurred north of Atlanta.
Mr. Snyder explained his Remote Runway Concepfi as follows:
a. Keep the existing terminal and parking facilifiies exactly where they
are. Passengers will park and check in and out exactly where they do
today.
b. Build a new set of runways at the Rosemount Experimenfial Station of
the University of Nlinnesota. It's completely within the recommended
site area selected by Met Council, and is close to the Twin Cities.
The public already owns 7300 acres of flat land there (previously
donated to the State), saving millions in land costs. Mr. Snyder
explained that easements will need to be acquired on another 3-8,000
)
__ 2
�
acres to allow for a proper noise buffer zone.
c. Buiid a high speed raii link connecting the airfield to the present MSP
terminal - a train every 6 minutes in each direction. Build a ravine
bridge over the Minnesota River south of MSP to connect directly
with the present terminal. Mr. Snyder explained that the total cost of
trains, spares, new track, right-of-way and the bridge (about 5240
million as of 1994) is far less than the S 1.5 billion required for
building the otherwise needed huge new highway network.
d. Build only whatever fierminal facilities are needed at the new site to
take care of the hub and spoke passengers. Full services will exist
only a few minufies away by high speed train.
,
e. Sell, lease or give one runway at the present MSP site to Norfihwest
for their maintenance base operations, thus avoiding hundred of
millions in moving c�sts which NWA cannot afford and does not want
to spend even if it could afford to do so.
f. Develop the balance of MSP site to the highest and best use.
g. All the businesses along the strip and all the �eighbors stay put.
Nothing would change except the noise, which would go away. �
h. Force the MAC to end its sweetheart charges .to its tenants, and
begin charging the airlines and other airport businesses at rates which
are at least equal to those in most other major airports.
Chair Beaty inquired how freight aircraft will be handled. Mr. Snyder
responded that they would access the remote runway site and that cargo
will be distributed via truck.
Mr. Snyder stated that the with the Remote Runway Concept Plan, there is
space available in Rosemount to construct a new airport and that flights can
come and go any time of the night.
Regarding runway configuration, Mr. Snyder explained that the Pinwheel
runway configuration is an FAA approved, mosfi efficient runway system.
The problem with this runway configuration is that noise is sent all over the
place. Snyder stafied that with the L configuration, less people are affected
with air noise. He stated that three runways are operated at one time.
Mr. Richfier submitted pictures of the new Denver airport. He discussed
3 �
how specific companies have moved closer to the new Denver airport and
that airport noise is not an issue.
In response to a question from Administrator Lawell regarding walking time
and baggage availability, Mr. Snyder stated that luggage will be handled as
they are now and that additional walk time depends upon terminal design.
He stated that trains could stop at each concourse. lVlr. Snyder stated that
possibly five trains could be running at any one time.
Commissioner Surrisi arrived at 9:12 o'clock P.M.
Commissioner Olsen inquired about the cost to construct the new airport.
Mr. Snyder stated the cost would be less than the free standing airport. He
stated the costs would be cheaper to start over as opposed to adding over
and over again.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Olsen moved approval of the May 10, 1995 minutes.
Commissioner Stein seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
tVAYSe 0
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS
REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE �
Chair Beaty inquired if staff had received information regarding GPSa
Administrator Lawell informed the Commission that he intends to invite a
representative from Honeywell to attend an upcoming Airport Relations
Commission meeting.
Chair Beaty stated he would like the Commission to discuss the pros and
cons of moving the airport in further detail.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Technical Advisor's
Report for April, 1995. Chair Beaty noted that there were only 57 Mendota
Heights complaints in April. He stated that this is the lowest number of
complaints in a long time.
Commissioner Fitzer suggested that the City inquire with Mr. Bruce Wagoner
regarding why he is not enforcing the 105 degree runway heading.
C!
���1 � ► ��, i G Q � �
c�,�
MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION
(
Chair Beaty stated that the workshop, the Mayor discussed the Dual Track
Process. Beaty stated that he had informed the Mayor that the Commission
supports the Council's stand-on the Dual Track Process. Beaty explained
that the Mayor had discussed that it is now time that the City take anofiher
stand and inform the MAC that Mendota Heights has been treated unfairly
and that the City believes the airport should be moved. Beaty stated that
the Mayor believes that other cities may feel the same way and take a stand
with IVlendota Heights. Beaty informed the Commission that some
Councilmembers are concerned that Mendota Heights may receive negative
advertising if this new position is pursued.
Commissioner Olsen ppinted out that the City has always looked at having
the airport moved because of the air noise. He stated the City has not
discussed, if the airport is relocated, how that will affect the City's industrial
park and its residents who choose to live close the airport. Administrator
Lawell stated that the City of Bloomington wants the airport to remain.
Chair Beaty suggested that this item be discussed at a future Commission
meeting as there are a lot of pros and cons to this issue.
Chair Beaty stated that he would like to find out more about the GPS
system. Administrator Lawell suggested that a representative from �
Honeywell be invited to attend a future meeting.
,'�` • � •� �• •
• • ' . • •
• ` • • . � . 1 • � � � � .
Administrator Lawell informed the Commission of the status of the
contractors working for the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program. He stated
that three contractors have been indicted, but that the MAC has done an
admirable job handling the administrative implications of this action, and in
minimizing the impacts individual homeowners will face as a result.
5 �
i �
�
i '� `� �,�•`," `� �' •'■, ,�♦
EXECUTII/E SUMIVIARY
The Dual Track Legislafive Directive
The 1989 Minnesota Legislature directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC? and the
Metrapolitan Council iMC) to examine how best to meet the region's aviation needs 30 years into the
future. The agencies were directed to undertake seven years of planning studies comparing e�ansion of
the Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemafional Airport (MSP) with construction of a new replacement airport.
That seven-year process, known as the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, is nearly complete. By July
1996, MAC and MC are required to submit a report to the Legislature containing their recommendations
an future majar airpart development.
The Purpose of the Docwnent
This Oraft Enviranmental Impact Statement (DEIS) contains the evaluation of the impact on the
environment of three development altematives: a plan to e�and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport (MSP), a plan for a new airport in Dakota County, and a no-action altemative. These have been
studied by MAC, MC and the Federal Aviation Administratian (FA�. Other development altematives that
were considered are also described.
This DEIS is both a state and federal document, and all portions apply to each unless stated otherwise in (
the text. MAC and MC will use the environmental evaluation found in this document, along with `
operational and technical data develaped for these options, to make a recommendation to the Legislature
in July 1996 of haw best to meet the region's aviation needs. �'
A final state Environmental Impact Statement, which requires no recorrunendaation on an action, will be
submitted to the Minnesota Environmental Qual`tty Board for a Determination of Adequacy in March
1996. A final federal EIS containing a preferred development alternative will be completed following a
decision by the Minnesota legislature.
Future IVeeds
Recent MAC and FAA studies have independently concluded that without substantial aifield, terminal,
and access improvements, future growth in aviatioa activity at MSP will resuft in a significantly decreased
level of service and increased user costs.
Peak-hour demand will outstrip capacity of the runway/taxiway system without major improvements.
Airf'ield simulations show that if no improvements are made by 2020, peak-hour departure queues for the
south parallel runway could reach more than 25 aircraft. That would result in excessive delays and
aircraft blocking access to the terrninal, producing gridlock. Peak-hour (6:00-7:00 p:m.1 delays by the
year 2020 are expected to average 7 5 minutes per aircraft during instrument conditions, wittr the highest
delays in excess of one hour. � �
�
Dual Track Draft EIS
i
_. The FAA's Capacity Enhancement Plan for MSP shows that the annuai cost of deiay wouid increase from
� about $26 miliion at current tevels of demand to about $66 miliion annuaily by 2020 (with a new
Precision Runway Monitor planned for 1996}. This projected increase in delays, decline in senrice and
resulting increase in user costs threatens MSP's ability to proyide good air service and economic benefits
ta the region as a major connecting hub. MSP's role as a connecting hub is integral to the air service the
airport provides the regian. Further, MSP provides a major link in the nation's airspace structu�e, because
it is the 15th busiest airport in the natian.
!n addition to airport improvements, the regional highway improvements idenfified for each alternative in
Section III also are needed to provide adequate access to the airport.
Attematives Considered to Meet Fut.ure Needs
When considering how to meet forecast demand for 2020, a number of alternatives were analyzed. The
follawing is a summary of the alternatives that have been considered:
• No Acction
� MSP Development
• New Airport
• High-Speed Intercity Rail (betwreen Twin Cities and Chicago)
• Remote Runway
o Supplemental Airport (use of MSP combined with other emsting airports)
Below is a brief description of the altematives analyzed in this EIS. The location of the MSP and New
Airport alternatives are shown on Fgure ES-1, which is attached to the Executive Summary.
� MSP Develapmerr� — A new 8,000 foot north-south runway would be added to the current three-runway
' aifield. A new replacement terrninal building wuuld be built on the west side of the a�rport and
connected to gates on the .east side via an underground people mover. See Fgure ES-2. Other
improvements would include- highway access from Trunk Highways 62 and 77 to the new west side
e�trance to the terminal, and a parking/drop-off facility on the east aide of the airport.
New Airport - A new replacement airport would be built on a site of 14,100 acres east of Vermillion and
south of Has�dngs in Dakota County. The aifield would consist of six runways: four parallel runways and
two crosswind runways. See �igure ES-3. Main highway access would be from the north by a new
eight lane freeway to a centrally-located terminal.
No Action — This altemative consists of the existing airport facilities at MSP and those committed
projects with funding approved by the MAC in its cuRent 1995-1997 Capital Improvement Pragram. See
Figure ES-4. Projects that increase capacity (terminal, airfiield, other) would not be permitted beyond
1997.
Alternatives that were eliminated from further analysis in the DEIS are listed below.
High Speed Irrberaty Rail -- This alternative includes the construction of high-speed rail connecting
Minneapolis and Chicago and examination of the extent to which this would divert passengers and
operations from air service to rail service so that i� 2020 additional runway and terrninal facilifies at MSP
would not be needed. A 1991 Mn/DOT study of the implicadons of high-speed rail altematives o� air
traffic showed: � �
• High-speed rail service would not divert enough passengers and operations by 2020 to preclude the
n�ed for additional runway and terminal facilities at MSP. -
j j
Dual Track Draft EIS
ii
Remote Runway — Under this cancept, terminai ticketing, baggage and support facilities would remain at
MSP while new runways and gates wouid be constructed at a site in Dakota County, about 15-25 miies
away. The two sites would be linked by rail transit. A 1995 MAC study of this concept showed:
` There would be significant operational ine�ciencies. Nowhere in the world does an airport have split
tandside/airside operations over 15 miles apart such as those described here. That is because the
staffing requirements would make air senrice for this type of configuration prohibitively e�ensive;
• A two-terminal system would inevitably evolve, with the public demanding ticketing, baggage and
parking facilities at both sites, which wauld ultimately result in a full-service airport at the remote site.
It would be very difficult to force passengers to take an intermediate form of transportation, such as
a train. Lacal passengers will want to be picked up or have a car available for immediate transport to
their final destination, rather than having their trip prolonged by interrnediate mode changes. In
addition, certain basic amenities must be provided to passengers as they embark from airplanes.
These amenities, such as food and rest facilities, require a passenger terminal; as would the required
queuing and seating areas for transferring to a train;
• Costs would be slightly higher than the new airport alternative; and
• There would be adverse environmental impacts, including the need for a one-mile long bridge over
the environmentally-sensitive Minnesota River valley;
Supplemental Airport Concept — Under this concept, a component of MSP operations (general av�afion,
military, regional, cargo, intemational, and/or flights to major markets) would be diverted to another
e�asting state airport. The intention would be to accommodate the remaining 2020 demand without
having to develop new terminal and runway facilities at MSP. A 1993 MAC study evaluated the transfer
of various aviation demand components from MSP to Rochester Municipal Aiiport (MSP Third Option
Scenarios). An on=going study by Mn/DOT on the use of• supplemental airparts also addresses the
feasibility of supplemental airparts. A summary of flndings to date follows.
• Diverting military operations, cargo acfivity, intemafional operations or general aviation would not
delay the need for new runway and terminal facilities at MSP.
• If regianal air carrier traffia were transferred even to the nearest airport - St. Paul Downtown Airport
— it would force nearly 6,500 regional air carrier passengers a day to travel across town to make their
connecting flights at MSP, making MSP a very unattractive connecting hub for regional service. It
would be extremefy �difficult legally to force air carriers to relocate regional serv�ce to another airport.
St. Paul Downtown has site constraints that preclude extensive development af this type.
As with regional carrier service, transferring service to major markets such as Chicago to another
state airport would force the passengers making connecting flights to travel long distances to MSP.
In addition, originating and destination passengers would have long drNing distances. Once again, it
would be extreme(y diificult legally to force airlines to relocate service to major markets to another
airport. Neither the MAC nor the FAA have the legal authority to dictate to airlines the level and
location of service that they can provide.
Environmerrtal Evaluation
To attain the MSP development plan and the new airport plan included in this document, a tiered state
EIS process was used. The tiered EIS process was approved by the Minnesota Environmenta! auality
BQard (MEaB�. That process consisted of the following steps: (1) selection af a new airport search area;
(2j selection of a new airport site within the search area; (3) selection of a new airport development plan
an the selected site; and (4) selection of a development concept for expansion of Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport. - - . .
_ __ _ _. _
- ,.
�
Dual Track Draft EIS
iii
The alternatives were examined for impacts in 32 environmental categories. Those categories are:
Air qualiiy, archaeological resources, biotic communities, bird-aircraft hazards, canstruction impacts,
coastal barriers, coastal zone management program, endangered and threatened species, econamic,
energy suppiy and .natural resources, farmland, floodpiains, historic/architectural resources, induced
socioeconomic impacts, land use, light emissions, noise, parks and recreation, site preservation, social,
Section 4(f), solid waste impacts, transportation access, major utilities, visual impacts, wastewater,
water supply, surface water qualiiy, g�oundwater quality, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, and wildlife
refuges.
Ti�e environmentai evaluation did not reveal any critical fnding that would preclude development of any
af the altematives. It did reveal differences between the MSP development alternative, the.new airport
alternative, and the no action alternatnre. Those differences are more substantive in the social/economic
categories than in the natural environme�t categories. Below is a summary highlighting some of the
findings. A matrix summarizing impacts on the alternatrves follows on pages vi, vii and viii. More detail
on any one or all of the impact categories is found in the apprapriate section of the DEIS.
o Natural Environmerrt — Impacts of the alternatives on the natural environment are �elatively minor (air
quality, water quality, wetlands, .endangered and threatened species, archaeological resources, biotic
communities, floodplains, parks and recreation areas, wild and scenic rnrers, and wildlife refuges).
• Economic -- The development cost of the new airport alternative, including acquisition of property,
construction of the airfield, terrninal, on-site and support faciiities and roads, is $4.7 billion. The
develapment cost to expand MSP is $2.8 billion. MSP e�ansion wauld invotve land acquisitio�,
construction of a new �orth-south runway and west terminal, relocation on airport property of airport
facilities to accommodate the new runway and terrninal, and road impravements. The cost of the no
action altemative is $20 million. Noise mitigation costs are $1 million for a new airport, and $13
million to expand MSP. All costs are calculated in 1995 dollars.
.The expansion of 11�ISP would generate 92,000 jobs and $6.3 billion ta the regional economy during
construction, compared to 154,000 jobs and $10 billion by the new airport. These are preliminary
economic impacts; ihe full study should be completed in mid Oecember 1995.
• Farmland — tf a new airport is built, more than 17,000 acres of farmland would be lost in Dakota
County Cncluding over 4,000 acres due to induced development and relocation of displaced fann
households). This is about eight percent of Dakota County farrnland and would have a major impact
on the farm economy of Dakota County. The total is less than one-tenth of one percent of e�asting
state farmland. No farrnland would be lost under the expand MSP and no action altematives.
• Noise — In terrns of adverse noise impacts of DN� 65 or greater: e�anding MSP would e�ose
7,620 persons to these levels, compared to 175 for the new- airport, and 7,350 for the no action. In
1994, there were approximately 22,030 persons in the DNL 65 contour for MSP. The lower number
of persons exposed by MSP in the future is attributable to the continued intraduction of quiet aircraft.
Dual Track Draft EIS
iv
• Social — The number of residents and househoids that wouid be displaced under each of the
aiternatives is: expand MSP, 227 residents, 96 households; new airport, 787 residents, 229
households; and no action, 0 residents and households. The number of businesses and ernpioyees
displaced would be: e�and MSP, 76 businesses, 2,920 employees; new airport, 147 businesses,
712 employees; no action, 0 businesses and employees.
• Transportation Access -- The percentage of the metro area population that would have no more than
a 30-minute trip to the airport's main terminal during non-peak hours in 2020 under each of the
options is as follows: expand MSP, 80.2 percent; new airport, 17.8 percent; no action, 76.6 percent.
The average travel time during non-peak hours would be 22 minutes for MSP e�ansion, 41 minutes
for the New Airport and 24 minutes for� no action. The number of lane miles of highway
improvements that would be required under each altemative is: e�and MSP 25; new airport 116; no
action 0.
e Hisboric — The number of histaric/architectural resources on or eligible for the National Register that
would be demolished is: e�and MSP, 1(the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District�;
new airport and no action, 0.
The MAC is committed to providing the appropriate level of mitigation for significant adverse
environmental impacts, as required by applicable environmental laws and regulations.
Hearing and Approval Process
Below is a schedule for the remaining acdvifies of the environmental process of the Dual Track Airport
Planning process. A federal final EIS will not be prepared until the Minnesota Legislature selects the
prefeRed airport develapment altemative. Following the federal final EIS, FAA will issue its Record of
Decision.
Public Camment Period
Public Hearings on Draft EIS
MAC Adopts State Fnal EIS,
and submits it to the ME(2B
MEC2B determination of State Fnal EIS
Adequacy �
MC/MAC Report to State �egislature
Dec. 15, 1995 to Feb. 13, 1996
January 17, 18, 1996
March 1996
May 1996
July 1996
Dual Track Draft EIS
v
�
C�
�
i
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS .
...-•--•.....� .........................._................................._............�.......................................................................---....................................................................................................
.,,. �,._..._._._..._�_... CRITERION IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE
... : _. ..........................................:..........................._.................-- - ... ,... .. . ...
' .........._........._..._ ................._...:.............................. MSP NEiN AIRPORT_ NO_ ACTION
.Air Quality ............_ : .......�... ........... :........ .. . .......:........ ........
1. '�Number...of�receptor�sites....near�criticai off-..;........._...._..0.._ .............:_.._..........._...o.................. ..;......_...........o. .............
airport roadway intersections over air quality ;
� standards. in 2020 = ' '
2 umber of receptor �sites on airport perimeter .�......��.��...0 .�.��....� ..`.�......���........0�........�.........µ' �..m.....�...p...�......�..�
: over air qualit�s .tandarcis in 2020. • _ ' :'
_ ........................._....;............._..........................;..........._._...................................;.... ............................
3. Total airport CO emissions in year 2020 '= 6,280 � 7,201 7,047
� (tons) i � ;
�» .............»....�....»«.. .......«w.........«... »......«....j..«........»..»...«..»..............t.. ............«.....j......�......»..............»«....
4. Total access traffic CO emissiuns in year 10,200 13,300 ' 10,500 ��
: 2020 (tons) : �
. ......................._........... .......w........._..........._.....__.._................_......................�...................�....:. .........;..............�......�...................
5. : Total airport SOx emissions in year 2020 - 163 146 2 162
: (tons? : � : •
..._....�...........�..._.........._...... ..._......... .._ ..............:.._.......... ._....;...............__ _�
Archaeolo�ical F�esources.�.....__ ;.......,..._...._........_.__.._; ; .�..�.
�� ..................._......_.............
6. = Number of laiown archaeolagical � sites ; 2 ��� 1� 0
potentially eligible for the National Register :
: that could be�disturbed �_ ��....�i..W� .�� ������.�.�
� Biotic Communities .�.._.�.. � � ' ."'. .
:.........................................:.
7.�; Number of acres of wildlife habitat displaced. 360 6,86� 5��� 120
&rd-Aircraft Hazards � .....�...�... ;,�„�,,,�,,......_._.....,..._...� �
8. ' Number of� monthly aircraft operations less ; 4,940 = � 0 � 2,910
� than 500 feet over areas where birds = ;
� con�re�ate. µ_' : � i
Economic—....._..._.�....�...�.._.... �........ _..�.._...�........��.w......._�..
,r ..................._....�.....�..................................�..._....................;.._........... ........;......._._...�..............................._.;...............�..............
9.�� Total_jobs on airport : 16,04p : 16,040 ; 15,480
......... �........... _...... .... M. _.......... _ .......:...... _.. _................ . ................................: ................. .............. _...... _..........
10. : Total annual direct and indirect wages =$837 million : $837 mill�on = $808 million
��enerated by airport�qbs ___,�_�
11. Impact of consiruction �Jobs : 92,000 � 154,000 '�0"�����µ.
Wages : $1.9 billion $3.3 billion 0
� Economic Output.:.._.. $6 3 billion.�s $10:0 billion 0
... ........_ ............................... .. . ......:_.._......_...._ ___............
12. ' Estimated cost of alternative (millions of 1995 : 2,820 4,716 20
':, dollars) ; ; �
13. Percentage of tax capacity lost by affected ����� �1.82�������� �����w� 35.0 �µ������ ��� � 0����������������
,,,,,�,�_ � municipalities/townshi�s �,f t'otal)__�,_. ' : �� :
...»»... .. ........ . ......».».»_i_ .................._».................i.................»...........»...................i...._......................».._.._...»..
Endangered and Threatened S�seaes : : :
7 4.�'�Number of species on federal�iist ...o f .,.. ......._......0 ........._ . ..:.. .................�.0...._............ ..;.. ....�......... .0.....M..........
endangered and threatened species that '_.
'• would be,,�eo.pardized� : '•. � -
15. Number a� threatened or special � concern � µ 1(forste�'s �� µ� 1(loggerhead� ��������������0 ��
;_,s_pecies in Minnesota that would be disturbed: � tern) � shrike) _ :
.............� ....... .......� .. ...... . ....;_................. .........;....... ........_...
. ...„............ _. _....... _.... _.... _......
Ener�/ SupplX.and Natural Resources : : � ;
_......... ....................__............................:.........._...�....................... ;....................
...........__ ................:....
...................
.........
16. Consumption of aircraft and vehicle fuel in : 160 � '156 16'I �.�...�
� ear 2020 (millions of allons er ear) �
Dual Track Draft EIS
vi
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
............. : .................................................................................................._..............................................................................................................._.......................................
° .................................CRITERION : IMPACT OF AL.TERIVATNE
.............:.......... .........................----..............,...........................................................................................................................................
.............:.............................................................................. � MSP ; NEW AIRPORT : NO ACTION
Fam�land ..................................:......................................................................
.................... ..... ........................................
.............:....................................._...................................................................._....;........................................:............................................._.... �.............................................
17. Acres of farmiand that would be lost. 0 17,000
{12,700-site, 2,800
4,300-induced/
relocation)
...... �.....{ ...............................«.........................»........«...................«..............«.....j...................««............... .»
...M ... ............................................j..
,__, � percent of e�asting Dakota Co. farmland : 0 "�"""""" """'""""'
......�_._............_ ............................................................._............................;........
' �..._ _.Percent of e�astin� State farmland : . ....�............ .................<0.1............... .................�. ._.___._
�.18...M..im�act on farm economy of. Dakota County_ w=�� .Nonew.��. �.....�.�...... Ma or ..�...�....... �.�..µ...� None���....µ...
............y..... ...« . . . .....j......«»....«..... .«..«.«..j...«.«.......«»».«..� ».....« ..............j...........................
19. Impact on farrn economy of State of = None Minimai Nane �..�.��..
� Minnesota ; : ;
hloodpiains_ ..............__._....._�.._......_..... ..........'...._...............�.._. ...;.. �...._._...................._........... _;.........._..............................
........ .. .............._.......__........_..........._..........._.......... ...... _ ........ ........;_.............
..._ ......................_.....__.....
20. Is there a potential ta significantly increase : Na No (with Mitigation) = No ������µ
� e�asting flood flow elevations in adjacent � �
�rivers?
Historic/Archifiectural ResaurcesM�..�..�._. .�._.�... '� .��".."""'..........".."".....".. _""' , '".
� ....... ........� ......._..... ........._....... ' _........�_.........................................._.....;.�........�._._..........
21. : Number of histaric/architectural properties/ ; 1 0 0
districts an or eligible for National Register :
':• that would be demolished. _ '
22. .............• .....�.... ._......._...... ..........._.._....;..............._..._......_...
��Number of individual� properties and historic � 5� �1 � 4
� '• districts on or eligible for the Natiunal Register :
� that could be adversef� affected b�,,,r noise. _ �
Induced So�cioeconomic (to be addecij `� :�`��"� ""'"'�"'" ""'"""""""'
23.�;�Number of households induced by 2020 '• ��������������""�"�""'"'""'�""�""'"""' .
3,400 8�020 = 3,400
24. ; Number of residents induced b r�2020 8,800 : �21�519 �' 8�800
25.�� Number of em�lo ees induced by 2020 4,500 ��� 11,140���� � � 4,500
..............
I.and Use = �"" �''" w
26. = Number of municipal'�ies requiring changes in :' S ' 13 � ' 0 �
; e�astin� or�lanned land use. _
Noise....� _ � ..............._._.........._.... .........�..�...�......
...._..� ......... _ ........_ ..._ ......:...................................................:.._
27. � Number of persons residing in the year 2005 ; 7,620 175 7,350���
' DNL 65 + noise contour. _
....¢..._ .............. ....� ....;......................_........:..................;...............�......�....................
28. = Number of persons residing in the year 2005 : 22,030 �� 560 i 27,690
' DN� 60-65 noise contour.
.............s.........._........_................_.... ...............,............ '• _..;........._.........._............
29. Number of persons residing in the year 2005 ; 121,000 2,300 �� ��r��� 106,000 µ��
L�Q65 noise contour.
�30. IVumber of. noise-sensitive �land uses with ���� 1 �'•• ����.......���a ...................µ.'�'��.µ�" .2..�"'......
' noise,�reater than FAA Guidelines�
Seciion4(f) Park and Recreafion Lands ..._.... :........__...._......M ..........:........�............_.........................:..........�.................................
..........� ............. ..........�............................:..............._..._;.................�.........._..............
�31. wNumber of Section 4(fl park and �ecreation � 1µ� 0 0
..� lands displaced�..__� ... w.. : ; :
32. tVumber of Section 4tfl park and recreation..�.w.����. 0�..�M.�...`.. �....µ........�0 .............�µ.��....."�..... p. �.�..".�'.
� lands adversely affected by noise:M� � : �: :
..Soaal � . � ............. .......:...,................................................ ..;.. ......_. .......__...........
µ33.. ..IVumber of residents that could�be�dis�laced. � ��� 227 ..µ. � .�.���.� .�787 . ............... � µ�� µp ....�...�
34. �Number of ..househalds that could be •�.M 96 .�..�i� ....µ.�...�� 273 . ......�.�. ��.. ���.�... 0 ��.....µ.
:
, . ; . .
-
° dis laced. ' � �
Dual Track Draft EIS
vii
��
C
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
� ....._ ......:...........................................................................................................................................•---._........................................................... ............................_..
. .............. ..
� CRITERION = IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE
.............:: ...............................................................................�--•--.............---........-.�.....-•-•-.--..............................................................................................................
.............::........................................................................................_....................;.. ...
MSP . NEW AIRPORT � ND ACTION �
...................................... :... ...... ........................_...... ._...... ... .. ........
35. ; Estimated number of businesses - and ='
; employees. displaced. € :
................ .... ................................._............................_.....;..........--•............................;._.
.................. ..........
.. ..................:....
' ........................ Businesses : ................ 76 : ............... ................
........ ..
. ...........:........................................................._. ...................:. ......_............ ;.._...._
` ..............................................Employees � ..........2,920......... ` .. ..........71.2................ :......................p......._...........
Surface .1lVater�Qualil.Y... ............_.._ ............ . ..;.. ..;.. ................ ...................;.. ....... ............._...........
....... :..... . ......... ......................_.......;..............................
....._ ....:..............................._..................; ..........
..................................
,: StoRnwater discharge as percentage of = 18 10 (incfudes 17
; receiving water's available low flo�,v {7Q7 0? ; �A��stewater
BOD/COD assimilative, capacity�_��� �� � Treatment)
� Grounrlwater ..;..... .................. ......... ........ _...._...............................
37. � Sensifivity of affected significant � aquifer ��m �Low�to �� �hligh to Very High ������ow to Moderate
tPrairie du Chien/Jordan) to potential: Moderate.
contamination. �
.. :.............................................. _.............................. _... ........... _.:........................................ :.....
...._ ......................................_:....................Np ..................
38. � Existence of drinking water wells = No Yes
_ �' down radient from site. _ :
...............� .............. .......�................ ........_......._s............._..............._.........:..............................._.........._......;......
......................._........_....
ransportafion Access : ; , . ::
......�.........�.....�........_ .............:....._........:................ _......;..�.........�.....................
39. ; Year 2020 average travel fime to terminal for = € � �
: Metra Area residents (minutes) - ' � _
r ........................»..._»..............«.......»...»................«.......«.»««.__.........�..»..»».........._...................t............«..___.«....«.«»_._..........° ...«
� ......._..«.«......»...
' off�eak hours�;.�_. 22 :' . 41 . : 24
�'�...�...._..�..._........._.._....._ ��..._._.PI1ll pealc hour : -26 ..... _: ...._. .... 46.._....... _._.....; .27�.......
�40. Percentage of �Metro�Area population within�� ��� ���'"�'��"'��. ...µ�.���..�;.� �"
30-minute travel time to main terminal in �
2020� _ � •' �
�.,�,� off�eak hours ��.��80:2 �� ��.��..�17.8.��µ���' w76.& �
_..;.... . .............:.................... ..........__................;. ..._
PM peak hour ;� 67.4 _ 13.6 62.5
41. �Percentage of �Metro Area population within� ���������w�� �'�""� "
45-minute travel time to main terrninal in : '
; 2020M :
_�„ ,_,__��� off�eak hours '� 97_ 9��;����� 64:5 �� i 96.9 �
. ................� �... . ....._....... _....._......�
� PM eak hour ' 94.6 52, 0���.� .�� �
.............�........................�...�...... ........_..............�..._P....................._.;..................__..............._..;......_..._.......... ................._.�..�
....92µ8�
42. Percentage of Metro Area population within € �"""""�"' "'""'
? 60-minute travel time to main terminal in :
f 2020 � .
.............�..._........._ _......,.............�............�....................._....�.;................._............_........;......._.........................._............_;............... ..........
........._......
� off-�eak hours : 100 : 94.3 . : 99.9
.....�..... ....�....��_...._._.. PM,peak hour �' � _99.8 . .;.....�.._......_83.7�.....�.�.._: _..._....... 99.6 ........_..
43 ` Number of lane-miles of off-site highway ����. 25 ����.�.�.. �..�.�.... .116 �....�.��.��.. �.��..�.. 0...��.....W
improvements required (e.g., adding 2 lanes :
€ for 3 miles is 6 lane-miles) � _ �
..............:.. .........................._...................._....._..........._............._..._._._....._... :................:.......................�..........._........................_............:....
.........................................
et�ands
.............v.................._................_..........................................................:........_..;.........................................;.. _
44. = Num6er. of acres of wetlands affeeted .__�_..__ . 34;1_ ���µ�����µ5.9 ������ �������� ��_ ������������1.5 �..�........
wldlifeRefuges : _.....�.. ...._.... � .......... ....._.� ............._._.....w.. .. ................
45. �Number of� monthly ...overflights less� than�;.�.��....5,620�...... ..i....�µ.�..� 0..�.....�.�.�.�.�.�..�...��.p. � .............
, 2.000 feet ........:._........_........._..__ .. ' � � '
46. = Number.of�human use areas within DNL 65-..;�.��.........1...�..�..�..���..�.��.��p............�....µ.;.� ...............p�.�......
7Q noise contour. � � .
( )
Dual Track Draft EIS
viii
New Airpar:
Entrance . �
..,_..:.... _. � ...._. . . � . .
�,;,,_.,,.�� . - �:New 1lVest . � � � : .. - . . : . .
... ..
.. .
. -:�T.erminal:.�:� . .
. . - .:,�� �� . .. _ . : � � . . .. . .. � _ . .
_ ��, �" �; . . ... .. �
- .� � .��� � . . .
.. ; ��.�� � . . . . . . .
.. . r' ��
`. .. .., ..
;.�Yl . - - �""'� ��.e°e; .. .
.-n 4 �. _. Ne� . � . .
�: � .�����.. .�.. . .. . _ e.e � r .
- .N �� � . . °'.,� � � � `'°r�j
. ��d
• � �p � . � . � .•. _ /
: " 1� �'j . . . . . •� ., . :��
. . •'� � . '• .. .
. . � ,':'� G : ' •. - ' ����a°r • .
G . n
... � � �' ;� � : . � � - . . . . . �4'e�i
. _ m . :�... : .::�;� �: .'�.;:���� � � A.q� Ot�, . .
) �' -� p :`:�.: �� � ��_��°�.�'`��o,° . . . .: . � a''�.;;t° _ .
: � - � �e�� �'G� .. � . � .. - . � . � g _ . . � :
IO ', p. ' . .. _ - . . . .. •- • . � . • . . � -
, : . "- -p : .. � • . . _. .. .
•� � 0 :-, ... . ' _ .
. :. ;,� Future . .. �
_ � . � . .:;�:.s :�:�. Aircraft . � . . �
. .. .._� : .
.. . .:� . Maint. �� - � -
_ , _ _: ::,: �:. . - .
, � -
a�r�u��s S,��tiT
�l�' � � A
I
� i
�
'1� ' ' ]
-��,00�a��
►
o ,000 zooa
1�'1 '� .
SCAI.E IN fEET -
MSP Alternative
0
.. .� .. . r�' .. ' , ' . � ' :�i . ..., . . . �... . . . ..
. .. . �� � .�. � .... � ' , ,� .
. y.`�, �c�;.:. ..- - .f.�� � .�. � : . . . . �1�i'CARY .�..i .:
r
( � ��r�,pl�s s,��,yrq
"�� T '1G
� f
/ .. 1 1 Z
�RPOK
. .N
- o z000 . s000 •
_— .
scue n+ t-�Er =
• '
� New Airport Alternative
�
� , - - o � o0o z000 . .
_.�--,1—
• - ' � SCALE IN FEET
��rp�us s,��ti
r 1 r
'T 'O
: ~�� �f . . .
i m . .
j z
� AT I i ! ��
a
j �., • • - �
� T ��
"`"KP�R�S �No Actian Alternative
i
. ._, . .. ..._ .. .. . . . . .. . . . .. . ... . . ... . .... ... . .. _ .. .. . ._. _... .. . __ ._.....
C�
:.
C
� . ' �@�NESO'PA5F7RSTNfiWSPAPPR
� . .
I , ' .
0
��ir�iui�n ■ :�y i�s
VOLUME 147, NUMBER 25t
25�
1 � ' � t ' ' ' ' �
( � r� Mw�«vs �.suorr � uesaey n'om tns MlnneapolFs,St, Pauf MbmeUonai Alrport, wRh ths M
Nr�e�olk N9AMe in ths dlsfencs.
�'� � ' � 1 '�'�1 � '� ! ' 1 , i
f�cton �• :, Mwe e�naon t�uC e�n�on ■ Cost IMiators .. .. ' i Flnanclai pian
•Eost ' ' ;600mlliion ' ;2.86111Ion � ' Costf�ctas E�pirtston ' Near ' Ffnancfn� .. Expansion New
: "iioitfi-soiith�- Newnorth-south �
;�uinvbY •; �r:,,:� � �.• tumrey
r510,�006perat(tiris 520,400operatidns
: .: �C�pddt�l'6q2020' capacHy6y2020
�Dti(erances CurteMterminal Newterminai
i ,s r��°� �,: Cuttent �oad access New west e�itance
;�,� , , (angtaziways Tmdshwtcuts
•�q�;�"� 5 mae 20
?�;�'.� .. ... 6y�, 15 ` 25 more by 2010
i' .::,. .
Conshnc8an cosh =28 6filion t4.5 bi0ion Bond s3.157 bill. 56.334 bill.
E�s1i1K'b�4'�;+; . .5bilibn .36111ion � ;Tfekti: ;r:;;:::• . .893 .409
TOTAL i.7 Mlilon 4.E 6H(kn �.surcher@e ,.
�i�itatedeo=(s" ��.96qNon ' 6 6Hi(on 6rortts .254. °.214
. �1iCC'fundi ` � 1.313 ' .742
'se�n�x.�aqaWwhw�emeMM�.m .Other. .145 . .314
be 1fMeAed� �t►�,a aaiw�Y mde�e(an� erM nQab ..
.�+a«�+nsm«rhak. . ,• . . t0191C�;��=,5.762bqtion a.0116tiilon
•!• EacMeaa ooiro du6 to 3 peioerrc hnrduon per ��ce. �+�o�an Atrporte commluton
reer nerore expendthmee,re meds .
. . � • . , . � , .. . PWNEER PRESS
Airline objects
to lugh cost of �
other alternatives
�����
No�nW�t �,�- oHs'oE�
llnea atartied the ,� Pr+r�Ft .
Metropolltan Alr�
ports Commisalon attttud� in the
oa Tueadaq wIth !ts � a
own.:awmm�y .vee�..
atoa of an etpanded � �+'� �
atrpoct it saya ���
woald 6e adeqnate ��
ror ae teaae we nert
z5 Yeeca. P� Ster'Yr
Ioaf'esd • of .;4.5
611llon for a nep, .
relocaied airport or evea ¢t.d bqlion tot
the MACa veratan of an�� fadii-
w�Lteb Um��qivill � Nottl►weat `
Rhlchetrer pian Is choaea�= �p��� a
�,;�semect plan RIt6 a prioe �ig
NorthweaNa anrpriac move, comtng
f� daya befa�e t6e MAC and Metropoll•
tan Co►mdl are dae to malce a recom-
mendadoa to the I,egialatnre after dz
yeacs of lnteose adtdy� wllt cndonbtedly
canse a atir at t6e CapitoL
That's becanae it'a a new propoaat AiW
a much arnaller price tag-ao�7 becacse
Northwest.says the cheaper alteroative
pmvides adeqoate aicport apace for We
fuhue.
"I doa't think t6e pnbllc !a In a.maod
for ezpeuvtve iofi�astructnre: jast beca�e
it wonld be atce," aaid CommLcstoner
John Himie, chairman of fhe MAC's
Pianniag add Economic DeveloQment
Committee. T6ongd Hlmi.e.didnt. say
whether he snpports NorthwesNa la�test
Pian, he did say 1`ue.sdaq "the data we've
seen so faz leans towat+d espanding"
A recoaunendation was dne ia the
summet for actton by the Legisiature
neat wlnter. Bat at the 6ehest of Gov.:
Arne CacLson, t6e MAC declded to make
its recommendation aooner. The Met
AtttPOR7' coNtx��o ow 8A ►
C
C
�� .
es w r.
SAINT PAUL PIONEER PRESS WEDNfiSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1996
� � „ , ' � " ` � � �� � �
�
'�Y CONTINUED FROM lA
Council is due to decide on March
14; followed on March 18 by the
MAC. . ,
•,"The cat's out of the bag," said
Commissioner Tommy Merickel of'
S� :Faul. "Now it's a $600 million
prop�sal, not a$2.8 billion propos-
� al:;••He said legislators would be
hard pressed to consider the more
. expensive one if the cheaper pra
posal will work.
��•But that's a.question that com-
� c►iissioners want settled in a show-
down between consultants — the
one Northwest is using to arrive at.
the;�eheap figure, and the 6ne the
NII�C used to. come up with the
more e�pensive one. The MAC in-
vited consultants to meet with
commissioners to decide whichi
proposal is most workable.
���f:- the MAC is satisfied that
L�oithwest's $600 million proposal
. is �vvorkable, it may be added as
ane � of the altematives - for the
I„egaslature.
� 8�sically, the two proposals are
� �'imilar. They both call for can-
sCruction of a new .8,000-foot,
: north-s0uth runway on the west
side> bf the� airport parallel to Niin-
nesota�77, and taxiways to serve
the'��runwa'y and new boarding
gates. And botb plans eventually
add:25 new boarding gates, raising
the :number .from 69 now to 94.
_� ;They differ, however, in three.
basiC points:
' , �:.'Northwest would keep the ter-
minal :where, it is, adding boarding
! gates. a�. necessary.� The. MAC vot-
ed in 1991 to move the terminal to
the •northwest corner of the air-
port at a cost of more than $1
• billion.
, ���. Northwest keeps the road en-
� trance where it is, on the east side.
The MAC's plan moves the en-
trance to the west near state high-
ways 77 and 62.
■ Because the terminal wodt
move, Northwest eliminated a
taxiway that,MAC had planned as
a shortcut between the parallel
runways. MAC commissioaers� are
concerned that the sho�tcut wil� be
needed for taxiing efficiency when
the north-south runwaY is started
in about 2005. � •
"We've agre�d on almost all the
planning parameters egcept the
new terniinal and the r�adway en-
tranee," said Northwest represen-
tative Richard Anderson. �
He added that "we've pulled to-
gether a plan of significant devel-
opment over a period of time that
is economicaIly affordable."
The proposal would be built in
four phases , between now and,
2020, during which the imProve- •
ments would be added as needed.
•. Chuck Rowe, a consultant with
McClier Corp., added "You have a
yery good iafrastructure in place
now ... we cannot continue to
build our way out of problems."
Northwest � has opposed a� rela
cated airport, but ttus is the first
time t6e company has �pposed the
MAC's egpansion prnposaL
'The airline did not � object in
1991 when the MAC selected the
proposal, known then as P1an 6,
from a smorgasbord of airport
layouts, including one very similar
�to Northwest's economy version.
But commissioners felt th�en that
the terminal's location would be in
the way of airplane ground move-
ments as they taai between what
would in the future be a minimum
of four runways.
"If it weren't for the problem of
tagiing aircraft; then keeping the
terminal where it is makes sense,"
said Himle.
Also Tuesday, commissioners
heard from another consultant
that when the MAC's capital izn-
provement plan — some of which,
such as replacement road access
ways and an estension to the
crosswind runway, is . in progress
— for the eacisting airport is add-
ed, the cost for both the MAC s
expansion and a new airport
jumps considerably. The espansion
plan that includes a terminal on
the west swells from $2.8 billion
to �3.3 billion, and t ows from �4 5
in Dakota County gr
billion, to �4.8 billion.
That consulting firm, Jolin F.
Brown Associates of Cmcinnati,
also identified several sources .of
money that the MAC will probably
use, in different combinations, to
finance eith�r an espanded or new
airport. The bulk of either . would
be from bonds. But federal grants,
ticket surcharges, MAC improve-
ment , funds, and some miseella-
neous revenues would also be
used. Money from higher ticket
surcharges would .be used to a
greater egtent in egpanding the
airport and reducing the amount
of bonds. .
� Most financing would be on �the
MAC's credit, probably as general
obligation bonds. But the taspay-
ers would likely never have to foot
any of the bill. Both the MAC aiad
the 1Vlinneapolis-St. Paul Interna-
tional Airport have been self-
supporting since 1969, the last
time any ta� or legislative appra
priation was used there. Airplane
passengers, Northwest and other
tenants would pay most of the cost
over a period of time in leases and
user fees, along with some loans
and grants from the Federal Avia-
tion Administration.
(
C
' �y O �"" ��y N O, F.j � O O p�-�*''- pa ���. ..�'�. ' p �� � O f�D
`D �; m • �:.� y �. �� • � �• � y Q, ar � �1 ai �' �°- p p H �'oa a,, � a. �i
..�' � o o..m m �D �'� c'R.� O�� � ¢,y c��'ad a'w �D � � oc� �� � �
,\�' y � G � t'% � � C �+� er � � m � � � a'�-' �' � �i-�. �. .7. �'� �
,,,i `� � � � �.oq m � ''d � m � Cj �D � r�i- v"�, � � m m �• � � ,D, �i �
�-�•• � � ~• fwA � � �' � C�'' C � f/j � � '7 O �' � � � � � � O f7• � tA N
ry� iy.; er .. �. O�. � p G O M C N n �q. ."7'� W R'
•.. ��c ���,rs=r��nr- �w �c.wc���. o �
o�''m m m G,�y 'C �'b � ���v, �o p m a,� o��-r� cp �
ow� �:, �� �,�� � � �i `� �'T�ooq w �.�•c.�. � � � � p,
«. w °� " m
ry «7 � 'N _ r-1 f'�+ � �"+ �'' � � � � � a � � � �y 0 '�O C
W'�'m �� �0'�Q 's��pm.•� � w o � ° a'aH�i Q+
� �, � �- w �. � � � ,
o d a,°� � � m '`�dy''o o..' �'p ��. � `*� �a �
�- �- o' a m �
�•��" p R' ��m � ` "m►�� o'��,�y�
�Cl. �• y� N� �'�2 �"�' G n � UQ ��-t �C r"ti c`+i-' �. 1]+'d
om�:� �G y 'cla� �;� �o wm �wo'��''
O
�i c�+- t�a � W� � in� v�i m J.. y y��, `�, ,�,� k3 m �
�C G. o''�'b
w �.C�`����r���1
'��' �`'���� �p �
r�'' o�''d o o�q .r'' m
(� H .�y :'� �„�,. �}. iY1 �,
� � � � ,�+ C C2+
�y QQ � Uj � CD O
� � H . :'�' � �• 'Fj�i
W � ..'• .m- t�
�y �p �.. �jOq � �•
� �, � �, o � �n
(pn 'U• O �"'i ,�• ro y
aa'4 N � � H �-.
�
�•d S� p � � o
�p �. � � � �• p
r �i �- � � `r dq
�r.""7'•� ~r�.� C
... �i
!�, fD �p
�.�+.p� G,� ��,��'
A� � O+ H � '.3' (D
� � bd �*' s� .".. �'l m �*' N v, � . w' ..�' •cy
"� �o � o �~'�o �� w� �b � � �„�� �.�' m .a �
y,a � �� ~ ='�� ��.�.��•�b �� � m�.� «�rrt�'��;�•�s ��
m�.m�a.� .b �'m ���o;�.c,��a,-��*c�e �e
m `D �° �' •
m � �"�� "'�aow �,�,.c� �� a �c m Q"� � � �
�n � �* .-. m. �' � �' fd � w � m � .-�
��' � m '"d o �'' � � cc m o � p c�' "+ a •m m �m �'' w :D.
G `� �+ `�t- j7' �q 0.�. a' W� 'Cf Otii •`-�' � N-'�d-. �ro r�}. e+� Oo i'�'' t3.
�•('�� ��t- 00 �i dCt �� � � ►A+•�¢� F+:�n �O �jN� ��,�� e"''T'�O
�p f+.� ia �..��� Qt� � �%�'r7 O � �' � ,v,,, � � rD W • � C � r?
o �' a � �• �'' o � m A �y �: � 'ci � ...
@�'� ' � �,-'�� @ � �' o v� p fD °�° o �. ��y�m �C.�i � �
('� �r�r+ � �.. • �. � o 0o m m ca
��'7 fv e�+� fp i3+ ..• �• �' o a' �� �e; C m ct� 'yd .� m�
�' G � l�n "'% �-y eT � O' P" (D tD O j� '+ H
� �,co n �• yb � �A �*'� ��.'� p„�«,�co,�:.�.�� � �'� � :
p��.���,- . m �o q� w•� Q''m � a�•�L'ob.�•�� y�°' Q: •
p ��C A� O '�7" � iy tD i3' � W� fD iT' Oa
�,��C'j � m �n� �.�����'yA+�o o � �,�
��'� � �o �� ° � �a�' � �� �� �� �� ~' � ' �
���� � ��m� ���.�:.�,,, ��•�,M ,.�o �.��.
� c�. m � a• m a" m m o y oq op
n � �' ..� o ''�j o p'' tx' �' '�'� �, r�y' �'o'� o ' .. �" �. . m m �+"`
� tb iD �n ��" � c�-r w p� �� . ''3' Q• O+ i� :.'� � �i : a�-+-O�q �i i� m .
o � G o o� °�q �m, • � � • ,�-
G�. m A co �''
� o; � � o �-+ �.,, � o a�.
��o��w��tio p
•••ra� .�l;�� ►�+�'� �'
(D M �� � i� � C �� �, Q
Q.��ti+-�.�ocow�`�b
'�.�a�����s� y�
�:�w o m y �� �.�.�
o�mo°°�.►°���, cD.
m,go�g����$�'��
«sce.Ccm�m��'�m
'd p, y ,7 � . � r*. �`S. t2'
y cf� W i3 � b �►�7'' �� V�+i
ty
.���� �or- ����
� � �- y �: � 'K t�' o
��o� ��C ��
�n �
c�D p' �, r+.. ¢.
R+ N t3+ � y� fD '� �
" �"'' Q� �' : '«J '� �j o 'C i� '�!L! O' �' �- !n O ' . qy' � . tU (,xj i� � ."'j. 'C� N ,S!-, er .. w e� e� e�
.'� A � W;t» (D � W . co � o m sz'� o-y �' � m �on . .m . • m . m ai R.'o ]'' �. �� o �' � �;
.�y @"� ' A b p+ A fD �, A� tD �• fD fD Go t'� p,, O � �2 � ct
m_m ��*m ���-Q,5'����.. �rr� �'dW� o��'��p,t=Jm �C�� �►��, w iA� i e*'� �
«�.- m m m 7� o m m � t� ��
m �* � o •� ' "' �+ tsi m �+ �r �' � m ',� ru � .� c �,,*�d m' � �, �...cp � � m � ab ro � c . g � �„ �, �. m r,.
n���r m p . p, m «.. �'' �o . �",'o ts � Ft�p cc K �; ts' �. � �• ?? �"
p' �+ �' N�D A� tD "L7 ��. OQo �f '��y. O 0�. <D �0,� p.<D c;� �. lD� Q+ � O�u p c'�'r �p�� r��, �`xj O' �
. �.. � p� O m p, (D ~ ►+� m n �p "�1 �' �Q+� fD iy C et .�.., �_ � H � (D i-+ r* � "''
p� "7 . � .. �y. �' � er � f�, � � «t cn �; m �rq O <p 0 ,'� m n . �p 'C m er ..r W � �p�'' G' A+ a' A7 O
�'�' m o 04 -'� � � � m t�+ � <° � c co � � s � � �4 0 � G �. �' c�. a� 'O � . � �'?� � 54 K �' � <° �„ �. �
� r' A'' (,� pt'� m� o p, o�t ..r m`: .cor o m o y m a� �r ���,-+ a' ��, t� �
p .p,, � .th f� '� �, � �`� s '.7 t�. f�+ ..�. A� � p0p) c� � iZ+ jh � �+ �+ �'U O w �: m tD ''3' � +Y � o �I �+p�q •�-'_'.
. k3 � p+ `'�7" . . i3 �+ p. m � `t «i � � m � O �»� � '� •�• � • .t=. � m `D o m ri o � «�
' 'F�+* a G: �, a+ �. � m .. �• � �'' �p ts' p � �, .�� Y: : ' 'd, 1�+ m R. rio � t�i � � � 11� aN-r '
m,'"3 Cs'sn�n'� p,�•Cr'�p •'.� °�9 �m��w �'m- � �cu ���.�. oac�*m�a.�.�
ts' �: � c�r p� � m �. •Q R.,� .o rr o o�� sn cz � o�y � � v' �,. �' y
��;'`D �. m� 'd 'G a � � � � � � " � z - � y � �3 �' «+, � a m � �'�c �., �: � ..
°� �'S�.,�'�D �''�"�0°0 `� ts�mm`"'wm� °�� � m � �:'�•o�,.m��.bd
;.�,�� o mM oa � � 0° ~,�.�ym � ��.�.��c�o G �, , �'t�C.�. � p m m � a, � �� �� o
p p� ryq L:.�r �. 'n"{ o W. R�p� ..r W • p� ': "�.' A� �... �� e� r..p�y
� �� �7 rq '�• (D C�� CJ' in �' .A+. �• N .+. �' �" � Fi N 'i � O N . iy. "y "" �^' �,�', R,, �' m �p O � ^'
1
fD :' A `�.� i�'' cc �C aiq a or. co �-!� � p� . o rr- � �. o G�a. o �1 �. c �t�j
:.�� t� G�y ..a�'' � m C" ��y .ti.'' • i� �•. � �. m ef' � `�Y �j . �..Sy . p o c+ "! U� C 'C e} �.p " te-
.'fD ef� .. fD �,-' iy fD ''G• � �i'.S �. l'�� ' Ul W ►`� p�� f'�� el- �']'' � . �-+ O� i'f' (D CD Q ��'1 �q (D " �G• W C
� � � !L{I:.y "V' H iy �p, p� �3'' . p � . (p � <p <p w .."T' «�• r`7- •
�y C �i 'dp� ic'i is''i '�.� . fD �• ' ►r"i cr �y' �-h �.,. O � A� O ►"1
:'O' "� lA iS� n � A7 e�- fn �p�' e+- � p {y y '�ec{ �-�t 'd�,, e�r b� ; w�' e� �' � G; p m. "� `� W(�D � o
. �eM� O� • O�i .�. �1' F� fp er t-�i'D � �U �' f�9 � . r. C� tt r LV (D ���¢� c+ er� c� .C'+
r,Cr' �' . � �" �: p �. �' , . ,y � G c �r m y
�.Ct°,�m � .rr . .� o tZ,a�i i .-. � m � «,, f� v�i o 'r�� m , ,d' a. . w . fD m c�o A� �- ,Dy� y ?7 � � o "��
?
�
a
�
G
�
n
C
�
�
W
�
�
m
a
�
m
N
a
�
v
m
�
N
O
:i
�
�
cn
C
C
10A So. SL Paui/inver Grove Heights, West St, PauUMendota Heights Sun�Current/Wednesday, Dec. 27, 1995
� '� � � � ' ;� �;
,� �..
� � � � � �' �`
�
� �' � � � ;�
By Deb Schewe
Staff Writer
The dual track airport
process could soon be grounded
as support for new legislation
continues to grow
Sen. Ted Mondale, DFL-St.
Louis Park, has announced
plans for legislation calling for
an end to the dual-track.process
studying whether a new airport
is needed.
This is good news for Dakota
County residents, said Rep. Den-
nis Ozment, IR-District 37A,
who plans to co-author the legis-
lation in the House. .
� "I think .this is exactly what
needs to be done," he said. "Eco-
nomically this is the best deci-
sion for Dal�ota County. All stud-
ies clearly show there is no need
for nor can we afford to build a
new airpoi�t."
It's aLso good news for those
living near the airport because
they won't lose the economic ben-
efit, of the airport, said Ozment,
who represents most of Rose-
mount. By ending the process, he
said.more attention can be given
to improving the current airport
and making it one that can com-
pete on a worldwide basis.
. �Mondale's proposal calls for:
•. The Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) to be prohib-
ited from building a new airpori,
acquiring land for a new airport,
or constructing a new termtnal
at the Minneapolis-St. Paul In-
ternational Airport.
• MAC, the Metrogolitan
Council and other state agencies
to be prohibited from land bank-
ing for future airport construc-
tion.
• MAC and the Metropolitaii
AIli,PORT: To Page 3A
�om Front Page
Council to be directed to finish up e�sting economic and en-
vironmental studies relating to future improvements at the
existing airport. Studies are to be complete by Apri115.
Also, noise mitigation and transit are addressed under
Mondale's proposal, which says MAC is mandated to spend a
minimum of $160 million through the year 2002 on noise mit-
igation and that a new north-south runway should not be built
until all aircrait using the airport are converted to Stage III
quieter engines.
. State, metro and local government are to .develop a transit�
way linl�ng downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America
with the International Airport. Mondale proposes that the tran-
. sitway run parallel to Hiawatha Avenue (Highway 55) in Min-
neapolis. When'possible, the vehicles on the'exclusive busway
will use alternative fuel sources such as electricity, natural gas
� a�d ethanol. The legislation also provides for a series of park
and ride lots and other off-street parking along the transitway.
The proposal comes shortly afier Gov Arne Carlson an-
Inounced he would like to see an end to the dual-track airport
studq and the idea of a new airport being built. Also, the Metro-
�politan AirPorts Commission recently announce�d�it will make a
i ecommendation on whether to expand the airport by March • The
deadline for the recommendation was originally set at July 1.
�zment said he hopes the deadline could be moved up a lit-
tle fnrther because all the reports are in.
Sen. Deanna Weiner, DFL-District 38, who serves Mendo-
_ ta Heights, Eagan, parts of Burnsville and Apple Valley, said
she has always supported the dual track process because the
studies have given legislators� useful information. She does,
however, oppose moving the airport because of the cost.
' "I don't see where the dollars are going to come from at a time
� when.we don't have �funds �to take care of federal cuts," she said.
In a press release, Mondale said cost is a strong factor
against building another airport.
The bill is expected to be introduced Jan. 16, the first day
' of the 19961egislative session.. If passed, it will end the eight-
year dual-track process.
i Dakota County legislators have introduced similar bills in
, the past, Ozment said, bnt those' bills failed becaus'e it Was
seen as a"Not In My Backyard" issue. With Mondale; who does
r not live in Dakota County, making the recommendation, Oz-
t ment said he believes the bill will pass. .
- "I think the timing is right " '
�
C.
�
�
So. St PauUlnver Grove Heights, Wes4 St PsuUMendota Heights SumCurrent/Wednesday, Dec. 27, 1995
��.�a.�l. ��11A�C�
lCeCO �ildS
�X�D�,IlS1011 �Jla.�'1-
By Sue �egarty �
Staff Writer
Under a shroud of unanimity,
Eagan's City Council voted 5-0 to' :
support expansion of the;�Min- !
neapolis/St. Paul International ,
Airport. .
Expansion is one track of the
Dual Track A.irport Planning
process begun'in 1988. '
One track calls for expanding
the curient Minneapolis/St. Paul :
Intern,ationalAirport:�Theother !
calls for closing the Bloomington
facility.and building.a larger air- �
port; near Iiastings in Dakota . I
County�.; � .. . . ,. � . . � ::: ..
At its Dee.19 meeting, council �
members appeared to be leaning. .;
toward a 2-2.vote, leaving the de= �
cisive vote to Mayor Tom Egan.. '
"Pve concluded that if.we con- ;
tinue to� keep it at its postage- '
sized loeatiori with no egpansion .
room, we will not .be aompeti-
tive," Egan said. �I say this with'
the greatest reservatiori." ?
But then Councilmember i
Sk�awn Hunter said, "It's impor-
EAGAN: To Page 3A .
0
From Front Page
( tant to have a w�animoas vote. Other-
wise, it's a wishy-washy voice and it
won't be heard." .
Hunter, Egan and Councilmem-
ber Sandy Masin agreed to compro-
� mise their relocation stance if Coun-
cilmembers Pat Awada and Ted
Wachter, long-time supporters ofthe
expaneion track, would agree to sup-
port the preservation of 14,000 acres
of farmland in Dakota County idzn-
tified for a potential future airport.
After other governmental bodies
' submit their recommendations to
' MAC, Metropolitan Council and
MAC members are expected to make
their recommendations to state leg-
. islators, who are scheduled to debate
the issue during the 199? session.
�However, Sen. Ted Mondale,
DFL-$t. Louis Park, has announced
Pians to introduce . legislatiori Jan.
' 16, 1996 to stop the dual track
Proce88 and to keep the airport at its
current site. . ' �
Mondale� proposal differ's from
Eagan's recommendation in that he
opposes land banking.
Council members also agreed to
include in their recommendation
the need for extensive noise mitiga�
tion, more thati what is in the Mon-
dale pro,�osa��,: -
:.T1ie:thii+d and final caveat to the
council's Tecommendation was that no
ec
expansion�oocur before the airplanes
are all stage three quieter planes.
C
(�
��
.iti • � � .. . 1 ! c )a. � 11 ) • •1= . =a� .y�. �.t�. '�%'.� '...�/.��is'
�
; :• . ,�. �:.,, ��; : a. � , , �._ .�. . � .' � .•
�.
.J ',: ;.� � ', • :' ., � �:� i 1 , .. .I :� � ,':� �.•. � • .
byMichael Walsh Council Member Jill. Smith
. questioned the efficiency of airport
Mendota�. Heights City Council operations after 20?A.
members.expressed oancern Tuesday '• ".Flights will very likely take on
; evening about noise polludon and mor� passengers," , Smith said.
airporE, effieiency during a".Operations at this airport aren't
presentation of an environmental going to quit in 2020:'�
impact report regazding various Smith also expressed concem
airgostalternatives. - about the ability of an expanded
Nigel Finney, deputy executive airport to be as efficient as- a new
, director of�planning and environmenf airport. . ,
far the � M�etropolitan Airports �"They expecra 3,000-acxe airport
�,Commission, discussed the Draft to gerform as�well as a 14,000-acre
,. Environmen�al Impact. Statement�• a airport," Smith said. .
`report prepared by the Metro�olitan. ,. �:. Finney cited,the dif�culty in
:Auports ; Com�iission �and� the making, plans and estimates for :�
� F�ral�Aviation Aduiinistration: �'�irjxirC opeerations decades away. "I _.; �
"�"Quite franldy, with� We events of don't think anycine can give anyorie
� ttre last few days, I'm nof sure :what an iron-clac� guarantee �abaut Wbat�
�i'm talicing to:you.aliout,,, gaipped,.. willhapPenm,Bief�'e;" ".,;� t.,-. �
`�Fiuney,=br�aking,the�ice.�with a :.�. ;The.`:,report� corisidere8���"3�-��
reference to � Gov. • Arne Cazlson's � envirpnniental categories, incluiiing
recent.questioning of the need for a, air quality,•noise, land use and bird'-
: new or expanded aitport. � aiicraft hazards. .:
The repcxt weighs� the impact of . The creation of .a new �airport. �
;cpancling the Minneapalis-S� Paul would result �in the loss of 17,400 �.
inteana6onal Auport, builiiing a new acres of farniland,"about 8�ercei�t.of
.°airport in southern Dakota Courity or Dakota County �farmlapd." ' The� .
. taldng no action. ...�. ayerage� travel time to a new airport :
"The Legislatuce right�now is in during non-peak, houir�s �wouid fie;:
the process �of essentially�:saying, , atiout�4•l�minutes. - -
'`Tell us what� the demand�is. goin,g to '�Abiout 229':households wonld be .
be u► tha yeaz' Z000," •�'mney'said :. displaced if a new � ai.rport is �tuilt,
•� . Ta�Ceof�s and. landings az� .while an.estimated 96 �households �
expected to in�rease from .470,OQ0 ., would be disglaoed by expaTidi� the
- Wis� year�to:520,OQ0 �in=the :y.ear �020..: � existing air�t:;x.;. ,. . ..._ � . .��
. .., ._._..
....fi
, , �<<.:a•� - SmiW cailed atiention to vv .,.
:, _ ..
.� ..
.
�.. .... , . ,
. . a!rpEn�t- . , _
; regai �d d as }.�iusle�difig �oise ��
. uut�gation, costs;' whacir .,�'e ,,„ . ,
= at $Y �iilllon for a new au�»rt���
$13 million. for ,an. expanded
Airpo�t:.. �. � � `::�.
' Continued;on Page 10� . � �.
A�ia�pOl'to... .
�Continuedfrom Page 1 � . : `
Minrieapolis-S� Paul In'ternational
�� � .. . .
"I don't think that the repbrt
adeyuately addrasses those issues;"
said Smit6: . . . . .
'I`he cosC of a new� airport.at �a :
. mral Ha'stings site is projected to be `
�$4,7 billion, while the cost to '
expand fhe ex,isting -airport. is `
P�.lected tb be $2.$ billion. `j� • .• ...�
: � A peaiod for public �t�on
We'report will�continae:nntil �eb: J
�13. `I7�e.Metm�alitan Council��and;:�
the.�MAC will use the�report'in�:a '
:recommeuiiation: to`.the 4�'tate :'
�Legislature as to tlie liest ��oit'�
option�inJuly,. • ',� .. .
� ` •In °ottier. matters;� `tlie coiuicil: :
. appro3�d a`c�ooperadve� agreei�ngnt.::;
beEweeu .the city and tiie D�kota�
.Couniy; �:: ,.� Housing=-, ;i=fian�d
Redewelopme.nt; Anthori,ty on the �
�coustnicticin��of��a�senior hoaking. .
.l�J�....� .:. �' �
�.�: To be loc�ed east of the Dakc�a
Bank on�South,Plaza Drive; the_63- �
: unit bnilding will have 40 �nits� '
� desi,gnated�for •low-iacome sec�iors.
` �� �Kari Gill, deputy executive
� direcfar •�af the HRA, presented an .
artist's rendition of the �propoSed
�p�ject. Plans caIl for a three=story
. building with,an exterior of;brick
and�siding.,- .� • � � - � �
Council Member �Sandra �
Krebsbacti voiced ' some
re�vatians about t6e.prcroject upon
. viewing�the�artist's drawing:. .
�. "I:�.guess .I �was expecCing`
i � something more residential :[in �
'' a��eaz�►ce]," she said. •
; � Having�.received the Dakofa
�Coun,ty,Boai�d of Commissioner's
approval, the senior housing liond .
sale .was:scheduled, to begin Dec. : .
20: � � : .
� Consfruction on the ptoject is
> expected to begin June l. It will lie
the eight6 low-income: senior- �
liai�sing project, completed under
Dakota�Couuty's 10-year.C�ital_
r, .; . .
. ?mprovanerit Plan. ' � .
,. . ....
., _
�� -� ......._--
�:: .�-- . �"I�a.�.� ` 1� i �.�1'�,-:��;� i-��-� � `�
�
v�! -�. C;I , C�j-�.�.,��
J
' u� p �' at
GARY DAWS�N STAFF WRITER
�he prevailing �a' S0�
a'ttitude in the y
Legislature is
that building a � •
Ae.�1i: metro• area `
�irport would be ' ``' .: i
an unnecessary '.. �'�� �
and costly disas• � .
ter — that ex- :
panding and im-
proving , the
ciurent one makes the most sense.
, Bat that doesn't mean lawmak-
,er� are.ieady to make that deci-
�s}Q�in tj�e:��96.Legislative session
--,�s•#ull ygar ahead of the timeta-i
.ble:�contained �m current law: The.•,
poTit�cs of: a � "rush to �judgment":
after. �is. years of studying the� two
,op�ons at a'' cost of $10 inillion .:
doesn't.make.:sense to the leaders
�i ��� �tphe ' DFL : majorities . in both
�Oi4lW..i��i\� 2" a.;J . ; h'�,�., ., .0 •
��. ��,awinakers were • caaght off
giiard #iy:Gov.;Arne Calrlson's ree-
ommendat�on tfl opt for:.the esist-.
iri'g;.airport this year. He wants to
eQ�;•��the uncertainty hanging over .
Dakota County residents and e�st- .
„ " rf �,area businesses �that
:S�ig;.r',airPo
wouid be negatively'affected by a
?�o.ve.� : .
� _. ``Anybody with an TQ approach-
ing -�oom temperature � ought to
kn2v� we'should not build a second
airport," the Republican governor
. . I
� � I �i � ��
- �, --•.__ _ -
said in his caustic style. Airlines, could cause the company
Moving the controversial deci- to cut its work force in Minnesota,.
siori to this year, an election year eliminating thousands of jobs: Con-
for both hot�ses, didn't sit well sumers would see airline ticket
with a DFL Party that is strug- prices rise along with the cost of .
gling to hold on to control of the � commuting an average of 25 min-
����, utes longer to the new site in the
But tben Sen. Ted Mondale, Hastings-Vermillion area.
. DFL-St. Louis Park — son of Wal- Mondale is afraid — as he con-
ter Mondale, ambassador to Ja• tends bappened ,in Denver — that
pan, former Demceratic viee pres- . land speculators, developers, con-
ident, senator �and oneame state tractors, fmancial institntions and
attorney general. — joined the �others who get rich off such huge.
fray: Mondale, mentioned as a public projects, will get the ball
possible DFL candidate for �gover- rolling for a new airport evea if=
nor this year, revealed that for one isn't justified.
three months� he has been drafting .,."These things have a. life a�€
. a bill to pat an end to; the costly ., their own; that's why I'm stepping
study, , drop the Dakota County op-. � forwar$ � to stop, it now," `Mondale
-�tion and' improve the,�current au-:,.;: says. Senate Ma�ority Leader R.og-
poit: . : ,,. .. • : . . er Moe, DFI.=Erskine, thinks law-
Iri addition to aceusing the youn- ma�Ce�s will opt • for making the
ger Mondale. of . furtheiing his : po- decision �nest year as scheduled: �
litical ambitions by playing to `an- "�ere has never° been a bigger .
ti=new -airport� � sentiment �and::.;;decision inade' by the. Legislature,
supportuig a• popnlar, governor, .. nor will there be," Moe saqs. "If,.
critics keep menaoniag �that � h�s :�we change the time frame it �wi11.
. father. served ;on.: Northwest .Air ::,`x,�iist �g�ve fuel to critics �who will .
iines' �board of.directors before ac=:;��:; say we changed the .rules before
:.cepting ihe post ia Japan. •North="';w:;:the game was completed." �
� west . adamantlY � oPP� a. new Rep. Dee Long, DFL-Minneapo- .
airport because it would have. to ,: lis, chauwoman. of the House Lo-
foot a�ma�or share of the cast. ��: �:` cal Goyerament and Metropolitan
"Conspiracy theories don't bot6- �' Affairs Committee, says one of
er me,: and I'm' not running for hei� chief concerns is� that predic-
. anything right now," says. Mon- �t�ons :of modest airline travel in=-
dale. He � is convinced that what creases here approsimatin� annu= r
he's doing is right, and if it hap- �1. population growth into the next.
pens to have the support of a gov- century, and the assumption that
ernor of the opposite. political par- the current airport can be egpan-
ty, "That's • very helpfnl. I ded to meet those needs, might�be.
appreciate it " off the mark.
Iadeed, Mondale is as blunt as `.`What if we get lucky and ouc
the goveraor, saying that relocat- � economy and tourism go way be-
ing the airport, could be "the yond what we ' have now?" she
greatest economic disaster.�imag- asks.
inable" The tab could run to �15 "Why rush to judgment on this
billion in direct. and�associated in- when we don't kaow the facts?
frastructure costs.:Increased user Why spend $10 million on studies
fees that.-would�: most�y� be paid 6y. and then not listen to what they
the doininant�,;tenant,.:,,No�#hwest have to say?" Loag asks. ::
f
;c
._ _
--------_ .._--- - - _ . _ .. _ _ _. _. _
,,, :;
1 1:. "'
. �: . �
� � � � �,
S�econd per diem source .
adds to legislators' pay �
By Dane Smtth � S /�
StatTri6urseStafjWriter ��s�'�e"�
Every yeaz, the Mlnnesota House and Senate
lssue ceports llsdng what each legislator collected
in pet diem, a dally allowance that supplements
the annuat salary of 529,657.
But for many, thetr salary and standard per
dlem, which together averaged about 533,000
each in 1994, doesn't account for all of their
IegislaUve income. There's another source of per
diem that has gone iargety unnoticed for years.
Records show that tegislators collected almost
547,000 in addlHonal per dtem during 1994 for
their work on joint House-Senate wmmisslons.
And they collected anothet 541,000 for expenses
from those commIssions.
The •collection of th[s extra per dtem and
e�cpenses has escaped attentlon because the
commissions are technically separate enUdes —
neither House nor Senate — with thetr owa
budgets and sta� _
PER DIEM from B1
Top 101awmakers .
Tap coilectors ot per dfem and expenses from loint House•Senate Commfs•
sions (1994). A total of 588,417 was patd to legislatas tn 1994.
Rep. Wiliard Munger, OFL-0uluth ____. ..„...... y5,486
5en. Steve Morse, qi-0akota .._.......�.. 3,990
Rep. Virgll lohnson, R�Caiedonia _.._... 3.738
Rep. 8ob Johnson, DFl•8emidJi __.____..._.. 3,596
Sen.lanet lohnson, DFt-North Branch 3,548
Rep. Phyliis Kahn, OR: Minneapolis 2,806
Sen. Leonard Ptice, DR.-Woodb�y 2,756
Sen. Dan Stevens, R-Mora .„. 2,415
SenBobLessard,DR.-IntemattonalFalls ' 2,414
Rep. HenryKatis, Ofi-Wafters ____ .... 2,148
Source:legisiative CoadinaUng Commission
.■R�..,*-_..�;
�lnother source of per diem
bolsters lawmal�ers' income
House Mlnonty Leader Steve
Sviggum, R-Kenyon, .sald this
source of extra� pay could be "a
way to pad the regular per
diems," and that he favors wm-
bining the reporting of per diem
and e:penses from both sourcea
— the Legislatare and the com-
missions — into a s[ngle annuai
�~�There ou� t to be just one
place where tTie pubHc can learn
the totai public compensation of
lep�tslators," Sviggum said.
However, the rernrds released
by the Legislat[ve Coordinat[ng
Commission, an overslght panet
that controls elt House-Senate
joint acUvities, do not appear to
show a pattern of flagrant abuse
or overcharges.
The 547,000 in per diem paid
by the commtss(ons amounted to
about 5 percent of the regulaz per
dtem, whIch came to about
5921,000 in 1994:
The lawmaker who was repaid
!
� RWes dictate that commission
' members who mtss three meet-
ings in a cow lose their seat on
that commtssion, an IncenUve to
attend regulazly, he added.
Munger's total pec dlem cot-
lections for 1994 was less than
51,000. Nineteen tegislators col-
lected more !n regutar per dtem
than Mungec dtd in combined
per diem. •
He said Svtggum's Idea foc
combined dIsctosure makes sense
and that he does not oppose it.
The collectton of the per diem
has been controverstal over the
the most by the joint commis-
uons in 1994 waa Rep. Willazd
Munger, DF4Duluth, who re-
c�lved almost 55,500 in per dtem
and reimburaements from com-
missions [or uavel and lodging.
Of that amouat, 52,208, ot 46
days worth, was per dlem. (House
members get S48 per dlem; sena-
tors get SSo.)
Munger and most of the other
leading collectors of commisston
per diem servc on the Legistadve
Commission on Minnesota Re-
sources (LCMR), which meets
regulazly yeaz-mund. Muager
also said that wlth hls member-
ahlp to the Legistative Commis-
ston on Weste Management, he is
a member of two of the most
active of the foiu joint com-
miss[oas.
He said he's been careful
about Ning for per dlem but that
hts muldple members6lpa on the
joint commissloas take him to
meetings almost constandy.
years, partly because of the wide
variance in its use. Some legisla-
tors collect nothing. Rep. Jim
Rice, DFL-Minneapotis, coUected
the most in regular per diecn !n
1994 — S12,336. He has Insi9ted
over the years that he Is entlUed
to the 550 for every day oc pert of
a day that he works sendng hts
constituents.
But there are [ew ciear rutes
on how much titne !n a day'must
be spent on officta! dutiea betoce
per diem can be collected, and
the system essenttally runs on an
fionor code.
pn �rport referendum
A 6scally conse�vative governor
does not feel for�a newe atrpocc�
spending money
white restdents and businesses are
concemed thet the exPa�►��on of the
��g airporc wll( destroy their
I neigh6orhoods. Wt►o Is ��� that the
iThe governor is d8t►
construction of a new airport wi11
; place a burden on the atate's fiscal
resources for years to come. On the
other hand, he could be uading a
short-tecro savings for long-ternt pros-
ed
p Perhaps the answer to chis di►emma
. t§ to giye the ciUzens of Minnesot ort s
facts and let them decide the airp
� fate via referen n�t �o�ens, we
i woui� minimallY
> 1) Howwlll the �pans[on of the
ezisting alrport affect the Mal! of
Amedca's ptans for growth4
> 2) What aoise abatement guaran-
tees wtll the Metropolitan Ai�ports
Commisslon concede to the meuopol-
itan neighbo�hoods4
> 3) What other meuo azeas have
successfully completed a muldbtUton-
dollar expansion of a lendlocked air-
port (and how can we apply that expe-
rience to the expansion of our airport)?
This dects[on will affect the state for
years (ff not generattons) to come and
it [s the people of Minnesota who
should decide whether a new airport Is
built, the current one cacpanded or a
smaller one bullt and connected to the
existing facWty.
— Ran Fttaselt, Mendota Helgfits.
Gambiing ads
At least the advertising industry has
6enefited from garnbling in our state.
Md almost every_news progcam and
newspaper shace the latest Powerball,
Daily 3 and Gopher 5 results, as well as
lottedes from other states.
Doesn't all this reporting feed the
addicflons oi so many gamblecs? There
seem to be rutes that govem alcohol
and tobacco advertlsing, presumabty
because of their potenttat dangers.
Should there not be some niles regard-
Ing gambting advenising and news
covetage, gtven ali o[ the problems
we'ce now reading about?
— bon Uoyd, Rochester, Mfnn.
a8 �2����ing��' �e�o��b $b �
o�o�' m�a�T'S°'� ��,�m��°�S'
�a� o��•:m°c�o� .H.�.cooy��p�'�
0 ,�C', w.�..ONG'Vb �� W!"'N�pO
c�,,Fe,,;° o��'�+Q��� ^�.�0 �, 0�5
�y� `�w°�r�^w�q o`�"�v�a'`9�Ef°�
�o� °�'�a���p.o, E.��v"�"�e�jO�!
n o'" a�,� m°e ��5+."' � 5� �g•� Ec,'�
S''3.� '='1^��0'�°6�g S7�c�.°��'Q�'��
^+ c m
� � � a�B 5� o� � ��Q,c�P�� ,�r.�
e9
C��7��Ot9,z
� �� � y~�
Sa��o°�
o=5r,�ci
9�Q,�°'oC
� �% � N A
ye .�'° °c fn
< N •n�• � -� G
o+-p+ ywHx
� C� � � tlC'C
M
'.»7CG���.
y fc °: Li�
`J
��
A
fD
.O
C
�
tn �. �`„S', m�' O O' � e�. Or O O.,O.� r
���1(°'�°��°r `x° �'°t*'`'3 s'��°p9� �� `� � o,�
�'r7 w� wTN !�'7 ,� �fA.�. 7 ��f!
n,�°�?;a ��'����.�ow•gG
�'� §'� � `�''� ���'�Ct"�.� � �
��oA°: b�o��$,�b�Air
��W��b � � �..t4 �'•l.A��'f ?
�'s�A"� O�':mO���Oc�op,
�� t'scW'f � � °'� P � •- a�'{ .A,�
�� � �� �� a� � � sg�.
p � (x� � �C+t� O
��^NA� ����p, m�MpO"�?"
��
�,f�D� ��C7't�9 �:�p,� t9 .q�. f� eD A� 0� �q y'�
a A�c °c �� a fD °: �� `°' N� cb �° � c�fi i° q��t,Y � n
��r� p.a�'a.� ��s,,.�c�.E�,��.�o � a� a� G a�g �
�� a�o.�B�^�S°�.+cop�`v�G�m��.o a
c=• °'��gm� a ay�;F�c'.,�'» °.' ,°';.ao�.
Q. �S ��.+ t9 °' to '�r'ry � � y y� Mb � y w.� S�'+ q� m
N.�. W � N l9 �� {��p R'�•+�� `y �� tn a� p,w �M'
e'�. �p � .
5ar ��a:-„Ho;a�Do��cw`°�,'°����.F�aA�"o.
C ,:�
»,� �a'"��aM.�;,,brr5.a�`�'d� �a�o��9�v �•
a c w�., � m �c -•� x•, w
o. o ... co •,
G� y��� y�,7a C�4y � r��� � y� e�p.��' n�
�r F'n m m �o aC.c;. 5 0 0
�� ��wo5.a�o�ca ww°°Ao'o`'�o�'an,,'^'"�o y
� y�^ a�0�]° °��� o n ?'i'a'^� � p 0.� "�' A m �
c�DOdO^�O� OOn^�C"
''� � �'� `"!f� `j� 'ti' � ai �. �
. ����r� 0°°'�.4a'o
»N w �Gg �
c A p. -w
•� p1 ac ��. � •�•w N O� 1
a��:;rs ����
ab�m^ �8a��
°��^� `° o�d'a
n a �, m
•� , Ry fD N C O O1 � iri
� d w � g �+ ^ � a'=" �i'
ro � � � � �� �w
, o ,e ,e a•e � A a
t� ��p ~]
� .:o
y �c o �.w
o�'wwaim
m o�c g' • � °'
� C � .+b �
a.^p� a��s
�ya�An
i3.�,a.. 0 5
o �
;,,�53
S s�
a°:ok=�
r•'��o �'';,�r, �: ��:ti:��*�;n w� �
p S o��b ������ A•^� � � �� O
8 0 0 �� rn«..
mu, �oa N^�C
�^ 1? � a O �5' p v G�. L�7 y y�.G `p�� «�• '�' t�[ p
�..z��,M+r�w.7 •�y«r7'~Vi � Vft�".�ntDyn
t�D y�.d..��+ t'S� ""'C C �„Q� .di � ..�id"JVI
O a�.�."~J�y fG'JSCtD'� �'p{'�' '.7 d y Gi
� a^��°�d°���go��xawm�e
�wC� m°/�7 v, o�o�� ��''
�' a��i"5'o��p�a�Cv�^'in'� ���y
C �^����:�a�a°�'�'?�°'�
a n°w���c�oc`�n^�•�a�A��Er�O�a
a��� ��o��ob <��
b����o 000ao�m�
c�p�+ of��o� ,;� ���
�o�y{"' d,�o,�--y�o�,�e
�iro�� iRS�,�°�c�o`���.°e
°'=�a.°�.8 °'�m>�3o.�eo«9�.
���xoo �H�ti�����p�w
w�,1D O' 0..�6i. � �n O ti
m w��o ��2,' b ro ��t�i
��.�.,�w on���9!"»�5w
go:°.g� $�Ad�p�c�n�=�
� m .H° � � �,�� ��w H ,tDr�.�oNy
�
A
�
�lii
seno
O �
� a /��
�' d+ �M
�C ,
p, � P
i�
�
o�"a�^��.�������p���w� �
. a�,��. �m o v�i��w 5c��'� �'��° �:�� � �
, H����p�° �Hm�9�f55� o.� °9
.�JO=OeqD��wu,�t�L O'J'p�7�0..'�J `GOO f�C �
�o-�qp Ap� �a��� q���
~ 00 � 4j r`T�. G. fD p7 g 5~� F�i Q. �'7.' � I
�t�J ��g� wO�V W� b+ � o Ob IS ��•��p+
�.,�°�3 o�a,o��•,�o� Q��'o
I �o�� v�g`'�'�• �c^ �y�•o°a
Q,c�H�er S.��A�a�'" �r'
�+ o•o a 2 c...am�o eo ��' �.o`� �'
�ai"Gi C�I.N��`G:�.'7. �O O"��p�
�� � ��.���.�� � Nti �b . �
""+'.��p7 abo�j�p1ao��^.��G�pora
�"'�..~�n����L1 J�+� ���,�0 y2�1�
p��� ea'o X`�' O� m ��d O a.o CE' �
a � " �'�°�� N "'� ��� &a ° ��
�49.�+. o E E ���� ,�
`�o°oo �i�.,o �������o�w�
b�G p,a �M Q'O'ti m�.� O m�� �
5 � 5� a ••,
�' � � �- �,.� oa ,� Q. �,� � 6' �. � m
C �� c�,�,..g"*m�;;a�C°� �
y' w m m m n G,,C C„ 6i :. '�
S�� "..S.Po�cH dmo,w
oeoroa a03wy9;'?�0��0.°'��a- Q
ep S �" m Q' rj' ��. m O� 't7 m e ai .0 .ti
�n O d'p n,«�, pf,y'ry19C�'
a00,°<�A'A��oe����a�O��.�
.G tn n, w ,�.� �.� a„ p W
" � 5''0
G�'�p����a,o�yo�o.e,,. w$,o°�,e
o�y ��.e�o,'.,8��' �»O'o��r'
IRc��D� �iDO �t0��p�,�m Z.J,'Ay.�. cp�j+6
o c. 'M D�m����,�' �o�C,mHoS''�..
o��' Sp ,� p a'^! C�p y�p �d•n m
o� 7eo�w°'�� °.�°144r^�a°
�� E �°��cb� �eg'c
�c�., �����,o°,o�`�,� $'G,'�o,,��m
�' � _. o b Q
�A`� �.5�.�Tta.��H a°�m5o�
��) ��j 130���� �'"g' OIEO� W
O t9 �•0.� �p �
�, f� �6;,,o'op �'"e�eo£ Eo
�� ��'''p�c�r) o�aPo�j�moa�� �
� � p� � ��+QO F � � ry � O � o
� �a° o c `m°�'�N
� �o�•e�' ° �~ o ����° � a �
� r� b a
O g '° � G ��''°
I m'�y����' �i
� EG�����e ���o��� /1�
,'� �»ac,,o���' ����o�� iii
�: �' :�����a �' ���� z�r �
•�c�o �'� O^ o P. �'�y
aE��S�o��� �
m �. o o .,, .
oap;cd�`���
A p �.a�H o �
�i �'�o ' 6• � !�`
�c�oe�iEo�� �
�0�0.q..���1ef s��
��� v ���� � �
� ^�� oa�
oci�ro•cov .p' o m a �
�'y�',��,G�� �' �fA
�n wnSa�'�' 1�
�O in�C�.W/�t�D� `�
p{� � �p
�,8'�7tl' �� �� Vf
E�"'�'� � A �' � i�"
p, p�. �psq•'O � (Z1.7. � �
c^o°��'Oii'o 0
2:��ao���p �
N A
�
�
:..
C l.�n. b m,,�a o�c
� °St �'�o .`��'_'4�', �,�; �
?�'��'�.m o � °� �e
a�
.E��o�x�a�
yb Op� ���
E •�M�y N � O
e: g �� �� g � �
g e �&• „��,�g A,�. P!-
�����gy��� �.
00 � g'� ii y � �
�S,a � �'.S�e ��8. pYo
. "�:°D"��'�.��' �
�°����E �•
• �px O
... �
1
, N� � � � �
� �c �' �+G � _ �
� y �
����� �
e
�N��� V�
M�.�'°,g
« x QQ44a000�L'f f:� MMp �y a Q�i eo
� ��•~••�� Q(� "�p �f.C..�pY.y O p ���0 ^ •�t% �
ca�oo a�i., w�.a•c o�e
go�o�ry••A,�o� � `� ,� w• aao F�'-
g H °� � a, M� p � '�� E �,fl �, � � a�O � °° � a�•'_' x�' E � � �� �
��o w '�+oo � y��%�'° o P.'���.a a�{w° � n�'at'�ca C% :�
� s� �..G''b'8�,,gG•$ge��g8�mo�,�m�� �s
°,c �o," � �� g° �.�' �5'B'a° �p� w �v o ��b�b° o � J V�
oOg � •e 'r�'� ,.: �r cG .n o ei �
&� ge'� �C. .oCad�^p0?eZ� y�+� t�� ~�
a �w:: �
g�+��°� y�� &r�p�' `g�:.wo�nt ��'cf�'�� tai � �
p�����n���iMO. &G"" �p,�"�s�.�R+'EipE°�°.. e �
�• �'°-ni�Q°�e �p t�k�rono �`• �pR'$ �
� o ��, o �°�ng'�.P'„ �•�a�'.�� � �E o.�i S o � R: �� � H �4
��'��so EdE�xS��y o �ac��� �Qaa �
�'f �"'�.�'p8;o�'�C�e9q��yF�p��OK'���R t'��ov�,� ` 1 �
»� ��'��. :m��Cj'0'pOp.g OR.G�Igs��p�y 70 �ppn��c �//
�+ � ad /�
���b a a ��s �°� �:,��' Sro o��� !11 p Q�� MQ �ti O bi1 P. �
��'i�„i"�E�s; �fE �� ����+�QE M �OM��
L°+$ Ap���i � O�^ D�'�,^�����Mep'' � �
n :3.S�o� a�o4 =��. „o,e�$o��'R��'�'.w'�.o��°°,oM,
b
�S�tl+ ��'p P°'°9�ra��g.o. 8on„'�t��a'woi.go�b��
a' o�� e�$g�"'�" `'2K� a""� $c''2aa'°d.��°.p�.r �y
m�� 'icp�Fr �9oE�$�o'o °a=���'�°g°°'�°°S'? /�/d�o
f p �.r c'P� °.o°. I�i'�.@.cpi �H G� o y w yo � ?�'� VL �
p� i5 � O .w O¢' i� t t1 f� �f Q..�, m O" � vi in 11 � �
'�'�� � 15'03 �'� a•5' �p�` e �. �• p ►�-h w "�' � � i�`
� � $ � �� �,� o F g � 5 '+'� � �p y p� � 1i
�Snsa`°o � o°'�''�e, '� �''1'-,CZ��',''3• �
� � � � o � -� � �.� °�`` � x g Q e' � ��-*• p `�.��r p � � � i Pr
q � ��D�.0��0 �C E g � �N� � �� �~ � 0
� � �.��o �� a � Q� o g � c�� � � �' e �Q
� � sao��Q��• •�s ��.�,� �;cD �...p,�
o�';Eg o.� °°��''N '""� p �Ct lD
�► � o�.�s'A�, ���• oo O p ffl �. f�D n p �
o e gy � o' °'4 g `a'a. T'. � � �„y, �"ps �j ' �O-t
/i q S h,,
� � o 0 0,� «" C: .`! �►. 1+� f+•
�. � �. � 'o a �'� � �-e� "J'`,,.. tA 0. • .'� .
�t •°„ E' s � �• �� `_�, S ��',� S � '� �.2�'Oq ►�,t SP�-r '"�� 1� v�� � • �
m °�, ��g � E��,, � ��g �' a�k'� �'i •.s. .�iC a /"M
�,�o.Q� o��� �� �� �,g �'" g�v`` �' o ����'s� �, `l Y
ta O `C B ������ y C
�� o w�a ��.g �s� d����^°' �F�'�� s
� �• o a
�,�, g'° g�$.B�e `�.. � o iivdo ��.� � 9 � �G
�o .°°, s �°�° g a 5��<°�'�° � �° o �'� ��.��°�~t,� �,", °c.�
�E�►. oog�f�T �� �'G.. a E °e�s
yov, [� a oaqL�po c�io�e�a. �n��o ��,',
�'� g"� Q.R.G��, �^�o ��.N' F''��r F'► x�� .$ o E o
.� � .+ �• •- �• � �,' ,►,•d'a' °1 w � g e �, �w
�� � � tj � �b }����'�• ��'� p � "a(�. " ' .��' �O
� .�i� W � Oo � � � T .�r�00 3 � �Oo s '. � A w i5 S s �+ n �
E
�