The URL can be used to link to this page

06-12-1996 ARC Packet• '� • I � � i � �. • � �. �,""� " � , .�, � �,:,.. ,.. ��' � Please note eary 7 p.m. start time �� 1. Call to Order - 7:00 o'clock p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approvai of IViay 8. 1996 Meeting Mlinutes. 5e Acknowledge Receiqt of Various Reports/Correspondence• a. MASAC Agenda for May 23, 1996 and April 23,1996 Minutes b. MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for April 1996 (Incomplete) c. May 21,1996 Minutes of fUorthern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition d. Part 150 Buyout Update - Issues 28 and 29 e< MASAC Operations Minutes and Agenda for May 24, 1996 fe Ciiy of Eagan - ARC Agendas for May 14, May 23, and June 11 g. SMAAC Newsletter for May 1996 h. StarTribue Article of June 4, 1996 on 'MSP Mitigation Committee ' i. Zoning News Article -"The Trouble with Airports" � 6. Unfinishec9 ancl 1Vew �usiness: a. Discuss Mendota Heights Airport Plan of Action b. Discuss Noise Mitigation Committee and Review Noise Mitigation Plan c. Discuss Noise Abatement Departure Profiles d. Discuss Backsliding and NWA Fleet Coversion Plan 7. Updates ,,,�� ; a. Review Non Simultaneous Departure Procedures b. Review Articles for Mendota Heights Highlites - May Edition 8. Other Comments or Concerns. 9. Adjourn. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Niendota Heights will make every attempt to provide fihe aids, fio�nrever, this r�ay not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452-1850 with requests. � ;� �.. CITY OF NIEtVDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIOIVS COMMISSION MAY 8, 1996 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was heid on Wednesday, May 8, 1996 in the City Nall Councii Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was cailed to order at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Beaty, Leuman, Stein and Gross. Commissioner Olsen indicated he would be late. Commissioners Surrisi and Fitzer were excused. Also present were Interim City Administrator Kevin Batchelder and Senior -� Secretary Kim Blaeser. - . � APPRO'VAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Gross moved approval of the April 10, 1996 minutes. �ommissioner Leuman seconded the motion. AYES: 4. NAYS: 0 .�• ►•� �� .,-. �-.., • . -. Interim Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that he has been trying fio reach Nls. Annette Davis with the FAA's Environmentai Issues Department to discuss the timeline for implementing the Non-Simuitaneous Departure Procedures. Batchelder explained that the FAA has completed a draft FONSI which finds that Proposai #1 can be implemented at the MSP airport. He stated that this Proposal cannot be impiemented because of the "draft" status of the report and that the local FAA is commenting on the draft findings. 1 C Commissioner Olsen arrived at 7:20 p.m. The Commission was of the consensus that the City continue supporting th� implementation of Proposal #1 and once it is implemented, then support the shift in the magnetic heading. The Commission discussed the City of Eagan's position and how the change in magnetic heading will negatively impact Eagan residents. Batchelder stated that a letter will be sent to Ms. Davis, of the Great Lakes FAA Division, requesting that Proposal #1 be implemented. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE Tre Commission acknowledg�d receipt of the MASAC April 23, 1996 Agenda and the March 26, 1996 Minutes. The Commission discussed the MAC Web Site. The Commission discussed GPS utilization for Noise Abatement Procedures and how it could impact the City of Mendota Heights. The Commission is � concerned that aircraft not be squeezed in over Mendota Heights during non peak hours. The Commission discussed research being conducted by NASA which looks for 10dB noise reduction in engine and airframe technology. The Commission discussed touring aircraft which has been hushkitted. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for March 1996. The Commission discussed the Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified at the end of Kendon Avenue (monitor near Commissioner Stein's houset. It was noted that the loudest events recorded were from B727s. The Commission discussed that B707s are flying in/out of MSP and that they are not being recorded under the Carrier Jet Operations by Type table. The Commission felt this to be an important notatian as this table monitors the Stage II and Stage III percentages at MSP. The Commission discussed °backsliding" on percentages at MSP and the fact that Stage III aircraft percenfages are going down. The Commission felt that the NDCARC should pursue this item. The Commission acknowled�ed receipt of the Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for March 1996. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MSP Monthly Complaint 2 � Summary. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the March 19, 1996 and April 16, 1996 Minutes of the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Commission. Interim Administrator Batcheider noted an error in the April 16 Minutes and � that it will be corrected at the upcoming meeting. The Commission discussed the north/south runway and the fact that Burnsville/Eagan/Bioomington may sue to stop this construction. The Commission discussed the City's MAC representative, Lou Miller, and that he inadequately represents Mendota Heights. it was noted that other communities share the Commission's concern with MAC Commissioner Lou Miller. - The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MAC Part 150 Policy Advisory Committee Agenda for May 7, 1996 and December 19, 1995 Minut�s. � The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC L.egislative Summary for 1996. � DISCl1SS MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT PLAN OF ACTION Interim Administrator Batchelder submitted a revised Air Noise Plan of Action which includes items completed by.the Air Commission over the past year and additional items the Commission intends to monitor or pursue over the nexfi year. Batchelder stated the Commission should conti�ue to prioritize topics and set new strategies. Batchelder suggested that the Commission consider adding a separate topic to the Plan of Action regarding MSP Noise Mitigation. He stated that the Commission should be a source of advocacy for the Mayor in helping him provide recommendations to the Noise Mitigation Committee in which he serves as a committee member. Batche)der stated that a final copy of the Air Noise Plan of Action will be distributed to the Commission in June. He stated that the Commission should consider prioritizing the Topics of Inferest prior to their June meeting. He suggested thafi this information be presented to the City Council in July. Chair Beaty stated that goals related to shrinking the corridor, simultaneous takeoffs and the prevention of head-to-head operafiions should be included within the Air Noise Plan of Action. It was discussed that with the implementation of Proposal #1, the head-to-head operations will be 3 prevented. The Commission discussed the recent increase in air traffic over Highway 110. The Commission directed staff to research the increase. The Commissibn also felt it necessary to schedule a field trip to review areas in � the City impacted by air noise. The Commission was of the consensus to continue updating the Air Noise Plan of Action and to report to Council on an annual basis at the Council's July regular meeting dates. DISCUSS NOISE MITIGAI'ION COMMITI'EE AND REVIEW NOISE iNITIGATIOIV PLAN Interim Administrator Batchelder explained that the recent Dual Trac� legislation required the MAC to produce a Noise Mitigation Plan withjn 180 days of making a recommendatior� on ane track or the other. He explained that the MAC made a recommendation in.. March that the MSP expansion plan was the preferred alternative and the �egislature acted upon this recommendation in March before they adjourned. Batchelder stated the MAC recently formed a committee, called the MSP � Mitigation Committee, which includes neighboring communities in the development of the noise mitigation plan. He explained that the Committee will be chaired by Steve Cramer, MAC Cornmissioner and former Nlinneapolis Councilmember. The members of the committee will include Mayors of each of the communities that border the MSP airport. The first meeting is scheduled for May 16. The Commission reviewed the proposed MSP Noise Mitigation Plan Process. �atchelder stated that this mitigation plan is a prime opportunity for Mendota Heights and other MSP communities to advocate for noise mitigation efforts. He stated that the City's MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs .Summary should be reviewed and updated as it includes Dual Track issues which no longer apply due to recent legislation. The Commission discussed the possibility of implementing preferential tax programs which would benefit homeowners who wish to upgrade their homes for better noise attenuation purposes who are not eligible for Part 150 funding. The preferential tax programs could provide for urban revitalization and stabilization. _; � � 4 � Batcheider reminded the Commission that the City of Richfield requested that Mendota Heights support their version of the community protection package. He stated Mendota Heights opfied to not participate because the package did not inciude operational mitigation efforts, however, this did not mean that IVlendota Heights did not agree with some of the mitigation techniques included in the joint community protection package. The Commission briefly reviewed items 1-8 within the IVISP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs Summary. The Commission discussed item 1 regarding GPS and how it should be used to effectively and positively mitigate noise besides allowing operations to increase at MSP airport. The Commission inquired if the three mile corridor will continue once GPS is implemented. Commissioner Gross felt thafi the airport will run more efficienfily with GPS. The Commission discusse,�i how Mendota Heights zoned and guided development which ailowed for �n air corridor to exist within the City. The Commission discussed how the GPS may make the corridor more efficient even if the corridor were widened. Chair Beaty stated that the corridor is three miles long and that he does not want to see any changes occur before the three mile line. The Commission discussed inviting Mr. Foggia to discuss GPS. The Commission discussed item 4 regarding air noise distribution and how aircraft operators violating boundary designations should be subject to substantial monetary fines. Commissioner Stein inquired if the City can implement a fine process. The Commission discussed item 6 regarding Noise Abatement Departure Procedures. It was noted that this item is currently being discussed at the MASAC Operations Committee level. The Commission discussed item 7 regarding MSP Comprehensive Plan and how MAC has identified future runway construction project located on the west side of the airport property (north/south runway). The Commission felt that item 7 should be removed from the MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs Summary as it has lost its original intent. The Commission discussed item 8 regarding how MAC has established measurable criteria by which the performance of MSP is to be judged in deciding whether or not airport expansion is warranted. The Commission felt that the City should continue to monitor. MISCELLANEOUS � t MINUTES METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL GENEt2AL MEETING Aprii 23� 1996 7:30 p.m. 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 1. Caii to Order Roii Cali The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:30 p.m. and the secretary was � asked to cail the roll. The following members were in attendance: Mark Saimen Jennifer Sayre Brian Bates Mike Geyer Bob Johnson Dick Keinz Mike Teegardin Joe �ee Carol McGuire Tom Hueg Scott Bunin Don Priebe Jamie Verbrugge �ance Staricha Jill Smith Ed Porter Dale Hammons Associate Member - Sunfish Lake Advisors Bruce Wagner Cindy Greene Joe Gasper John Foggia Visitors Dean Lindberg Dick Saunders Northwest Northwest Ai�borne • UPS M BAA MAC Minneapolis Minneapolis St. Paul St. Paul St. Paul Richfield Richfield Eagan Mendota Heights Burnsville Inver Grove� Heights Dan Licht FAA FAA. MAC Commissioner Technical Advisor SMAAC Diamand Lake Association � 2. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the March 26, 1996 meeting were approved with the addition of quotes to the last paragraph, last sentence of item 5. �. 3. Introduction of Invited Guests - Receipt of Communication No invited guests. No communications. 4. Technical Advisor's Runwav Svstem Utilization Report and Complaint Summarv The Technical Advisor's Report for the month of March 1996 was distributed and reviewed by John Foggia. Points of interest included: * Stage 3 operations are up approximately 5% from last March 1995, which is a continuing trend. * Noise complaints are down: 1109 complaints reported for March 1995 down to 625 complaints reported for March 1996. * � March 1996 Air Carrier Operations are up approximately 30 per day from last March 1995 totals. C. * The Tower �og Report shows arrivals and departures up from 0 to 2% on the crosswind runway which �reflects good nighttime use, and also reflects that snow . removal operations were less in March. * March 1996 reflects a predominant NW wind flow. For all operations, 66% of arrivals and 64% of departures occu�red on runways 29L and 29R. * The community overflight analysis shows the number of nighttime operations over Minneapolis is down from 147 total jet carrier operations overhead in February down to 124 in March. 5. Update: Legislative Affairs David Dombrowski, MAC Deputy Executive Director Labor and Governrnental Affairs, briefed members on the 1996 Legislative Session which adjourned on April 3, 1996. A memorandum detailing the following information is attached to the minutes. � Mr. Dombrowski �eviewed six �egislative Bills affecting the MAC which became law: 1. Airport Planning/Bloornington TIF Bill - Chapter 464 2. Omnibus Tax Bill - Chapter 471 � Page 2 3. Noise Mitigation Spending Requirements - Chapter 320 4. MAC Parking Policy - Chapter 378 5. Metro-Wide Public Safety Radio -$15 million Appropriation 6. Regulation of Deposits of Public Funds - Chapter 399 Bills that did not become law are: 1. Changes to the Met Council: elected body 2. Targeted group purchasing preferences 3. Legislative Auditor jurisdiction - vetoed 4. Municipal tort liability 5. Environmental taxation: MAC permit fees A discussion session followed the presentation. 6. Sunfish Lake Membership Qualifications Chairman Johnson reiterated findings and recommendation of the Executive Committee who determined all criteria has been met to allow Sunfish Lake membership. However, voting privileges will not be sustained until an offsetting User Member vote is secured. Scott Bunin. St. Paul moved, and Carol Ann McGuire St. Paul seconded to approve MASAC membership of Sun�sh Lake without votinq privileaes until an offsetting User member is acquired. A vote was taken and passed unanimouslv. �; . i �7. Report of the MAC Aqril Commission Meetinq Chairman Johnson reported Commission Vice-Chair Steve Cramer, will chair a committee to complete a noise mitigation plan for MSP (required by legislature - due September 1996) which may consider residential and school sound insulation beyond the 1996 Ldn65 contour and other mitigative measures which may include land acquisition. Other members of the Noise Mitigation Committee will include: 4-Commission members, 2- Metropolitan Gouncil, 1-MASAC, 1-Northwest Airlines, and the Mayors of Minneapolis, Bloomington, Richfield, Eagan, mendota heights, St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, and Burnsville. John Foggia updated members on GPS: '` Ground breaking took place April 9, 1996 - on schedule. * Flight testing with Honeywell's fully-equipped Citation V began April 16, 1996. 20 DME ares are being flown to determine service� volume coverage and signal strength of MSP's broadcasts. * Ground Station STC submittal will take place June 1, 1996. * MSP g�ound station STC approval is due June 15, 1996. 8. Persons Wishinq to Address the Council None P2ae 3 9. Other items Not on the Aqenda None 10. Adiournment Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Jean Deighton, Secretary C C ! � METRtJPOLITAN AIIZPOIZ'T� C(�MMIS�ION , ylinneapolis-Saint Paul International r�irport � . � t;0-�t) - _�tith .1� t�nii�� 5outh • \I1t111E'•21(�OIIS. �I� ;i.5-��O-'�T�)9 �`..�► �; . l'ltutle (Eil"?) i'?f-$100 ° Ft1x ((i12) �2Ei-.i'��6 � z I - = � �n + 'j' � � �°Y,' QVuNt-a � T0: MASAC Members FROM: David Dombrowski, Deputy Executive Director Labor and Governmental Affairs DATE�: April 23, 1996 � SUBJECT : 1996 Legislative Session The 1996 Legislature adjourned on April 3rd after a three-month session. Legislation affecting the MAC includes: 1. Airport Planning/Bloomington TIF Bill: Chapter 464 a) Bloomington TIF District Transfer: • authorizes Bloomington to transfer a pre- 1988 tax increment financing district from the Kelly farm site to the Met . Center site b) Metropolitan Airport Provisions: • prohibits MAC from acquiring land for a new major airport • requires MAC to prohibit use of non-stage 3 aircraft at MSP after December 31, 1999 i':t' \�1 i:�111)illll.lt? ...!'':�11'I,;. 1,11;�;!ilil�i1;11 :1 �iii �.!�:..�,,...,i <t�.;i11.'1 1'!ii�ii��l:'f. K�•li��.rr .-1�rp��n,� :\IR�:\hF: �.-�X(Iii.� (:(1l'ti'I'Y Bt..�l\E: • CRYS'fAl. e FLl'I\G C:LOt'� � L.-�hE Et.�tU � tiAt\'1' I�.\t'I� UU1�'X'f( itt'\ Page 2 • requires MAC to develop a plan to direct t�affic to reliever airports • prohibits the MAC from congtzucting a replacemen� passenge= terminal on the west side of MSP without lag�islative approval • requires the MAC to enter into a contract with affected cities providing thr�t the MAC will not build a thi=d parallel runway • requi=es a report on the envaron�nental effects of expanding the aa.rport to accommodate 600,000 to 750,000 operations per yea= � s requi=es the MAC to report by February 15th each year an the operations and equipments at the aitport, delay tin7es � and technoloqical developments that affect aviation � �� • requires the MAC to spend no less than $185 million from 1996 to 2002 for noise mitigatio�n and property acquisition • in addition, MAC shall insul�te and ai= condition four s�hools in Minneapolis and two schools in Richfield that are wi�hin the 1996 LDN65 contour. • requires the MAC to develop a noise mit�igation plen as a result of Nos'th/South =unway constructian • requires the MAC to contract with the U of N� to prepare an aviation services and facilities analysis c) Aircraft Noise Impact Relief • establishes an urban revitalization , � �� and stabilization aone in arQas itnpacted by noise (�, _ q Page 3 ° authorizes cities to establish housinq replacement di9tricts ° expends the v8luation exclusion for homestead property 2. Omnibu9 Tax Hill: Chapter 471 a) Receipts from aircraft apportioned ba�ed an tha proportion of landings in the state t.o total landings (NwA planes that are lQ�sed will no Ionger be fully taxed in Minnesote) b� Airflight equipment sold to airline companies is exempt from the sales tax c) Holman Field prope=ty detachment from city and school district, thus-exemptin� that property f=om the CS.ty and the school district properL•y taxes. This section gives the same exempt status to Holman as MSP. d) MAC Revenue Bond Authority • revenue bond authority is granted to the MAC effective August 1, 1996 3. Noise Mitiqation Spendinq Requirements: Ghapt.er 320 The cu=rent passenger faci2ity cha=gQ revenue amount percentage (40$) budqeted for 1996 wi]1 be used in 1997 for noise mitigation 4. MAC Parkinq Policy: Chapter 379 • f=ee parking qenerally prohibi�ed ex�eptions: • employees and members of MA.0 at the terminal on � olficial business • citizens attending Commission meetings o= voluntee=s Page 4 � � f. • parking cards must have expiration d�te of one-year aiter issue • expired cards must be returned e MAC must maintain a record of who receivas free parinq at the terminal o all existing cards expi=ed on March 26, 1996 5• Metro-Wide Public Safety Radios $15 aeill.ian �Appropgiation � • The bonding bill includes �1.5 million to assist in construction of the backbone of a metropolitan-area public sefety radio communications system.. This will allow all met=o public safety personnel to communicate through a common radio link. 6. Requlation of Deposits ef Pnblic Funds: Chap�er 399 ( o "Government entities" include pub�ic corporations i.e., the MAC • Investments of public funds are regulated Hills That Did Not Hecome Law Chanqes to the Met Council: e].ected body Ta=qeted group purchasing preferences Legislative Auditor jurisdiction - vetoed Muni�3pa1 tort liability Environmental taxation: MAC permit fees � , .� . � ; _ � .�: � � � � . � � , � By Scott Renne Not long ago, the Star Trlbune published a map showing as- sessed property values in Minne-. apolis (news, Mar�ch 10). Areas � where assessed values de�llned,.. were shown in orange, while. netghborhoods where they in- ' creased were shown in green.. '" � In the days following the story, I received calis from astoucided real estate agents telling me I wae all wrong. They told me they couldn't keep !lstings "up on the board" because homes were sell- ing so fast. And not just !n the "green" areas, but in the very cores of the "orange" where peo- ple are discovering lower-priced homes were a real value. One agent told me that you couldn't find a house to buy in Bancroft, a neighborhood colored yellow and dectared "stagnant." "It's not stagnant," she declared. "It's sta- ble! There's no turnover. Nobody moves. E�erybody loves it there." Agents talked about more neighborhoods of the "yellow" been flowing into neighborhoods and "orange" variety whete satis- from the MCDA, the NRP and fied 'homeowners were refusing dozens of nonprofit develogers. to budge, unwilling to sell their Since then, the inspections de- homes and tlee to the subutbs. partment had gotten tough on Northeast is the next trendy rental licensing, and new houses neighborhood, several predicted. rose where boarded buildings Jordan and Hawthorne in Near stood in 1994. North, helped by heavy invest- I decided to talce a look at sales ment by the city's Neighborhood prices of houses that sold in Min- Revitalization Progtam (NRP) and neapolis in 1995. I compiled in- the Minneapalis Community De- formation provided by the Min- velopment Agency (MCDA), is neapolis Area Real Estate Associa- bouncing back. Powderhorn Park tion Multiple Listi-�� Ser��ice and is attracting committed home- was able to fin� the number of owners. Young couples are dis- houses sold and their sale price in covering the affordahility oi' each MLS District (quite close in hou.sing in the quiet, tree-�ined terms of boundaries to the city's Longfellow neighborhoods. i l planning districts). I reminded the agents that as- What I found out was hearten- sessments are a historical look at ing: The average sales price of a values, not a prediction, and that home in all 10 districts rose from the 1996 ta�c assessmenf informa- 1994 to 1995. tion in xhe paper reflected 1994 This good news of cItywide in- property values. Since then, I ex- creasing property values — an plained, millions of doilars have increase we've been experiencing for a full year already — won't be reflected in property tax assess- ments until next year. This means that 1997 assessments will result in a map with far less orange and far more light green — a color indicating an increase in value of 1 to 10 percent. What helped Minneapolis turn the corner? We've . recognized that all neighborhoods go through a life cycle of growth, stability, decline and revitalization. The city now focuses the zoning, planning and financial resources of the city and MCDA on strategic maintenance and upgrades of residential hous- ing as neighborhoods pass through these stages. The patient �:�nrk of comr.�itted citizens in neighborhood organizations, block clubs and NRP (which was begun by a City Council com- posed of former neighborhood activists) is beginning to beaz fruit, as neighborhoods emerge from planning to implementation. Through NRP, funding is pro- vided to neighborhoods based on where they are in the housing life cycle — needing "protection," "redirection" or revitalization." Twenty-four neighborhoods have NRP projects underway. Initial evidence suggests these strategies are working. In addi- tion to the increase in the average sale price of homes in all 10 MIS districts, other indicadons are: > Permit activity is directly linked to revitalization efforts. The North MLS District showed a 14.7 percent deciine in the 1994 Housing Report and a 3.7 percent increase in ti�e 1995 Report. Neighborhoods with the highest level of permit activity which re- quires review by the assessor's office are in this area — 7ordan, Hawthorne and Willard Hay. Per- mit activity in these neighbor- hood is near(y twice that of neighborhoods of similaz size. D Since 1990 the city inspec- tions department has aggressivety identified, boarded and demol- ished blighted properties and MCDA has rep(aced them,with new homes built by various non- profit and for profit groups. Doz- ens of new homes came on the market last year, helping to raise values in the azea. > The city's new program to bring all rental housing up to code. Because rental licensing h•r.s onl�: been in nlace since 1943, its positive impact is now •jpst starting to be manifes't in the neighbothoods. > The city inspections depart- ment says that the strength of the neighborhood organizations and the new ways the inspectors have found to work with them ar� also having a salutary effect on prop- erty values. Director of Inspec- tions Merwyn Larson says that neighbors now target trouble- some houses and alert inspec- tions before the problems have:a chance to spread. Larson feels that residents have more confi- dence in the city and know that it will act to protect the block. > There is new recogniHou, here and nationally, that as urban problems spread �om urban cores to inner, and uitimately outer, suburban rings, it is more usefiil to bloom where we are ptanted end work on solving the prolilem's. Plus> it is becoming clearer ttiat increased density is beginning to mean increased security. ' I encourage you to loolc foi- ward, not backward, when St comes to the real estate oppo,rtu- nities in Minneapolis. The enor- mous commitments made by'ttle' city and the neighborhoods'ate beginning to pay off. Properties and property values are 're- bounding. I strongly believe that properfy values in most neighborhoods in the city have bottomed out and that homes in these neighboi- h��ods will continue to increase in va!��e. It's a great time to bu}� a he: �;e in the city. • :�rt Renne ts the Minneapo- riccPSSnr. ' �.�.': a..);' \ � � Mefiropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) 6040 28th Avenue South o Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 •(612) 726-9411 Chairman: Robert P, Johnson Past Chairs: Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Oison, 1969-1979 Technical ' Advisor: John Foggia To: FROM: SIJBJECT: DATE: Metropolita.n Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) 7ohn Foggia, Technical Advisor _ - April, 1996 Technical Advisor's Report �.y as, 1996 Due to a series of ANOMS radar-reading software and hardware failures during April 1996, a complete Technical Advisor's Report was impossible to prod.uce. Early in April, Traci Erickson, � � Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs (ANSP) ANOMS Specialist, was notified by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) tower personnel � that �the TRACOR radar diskpack reader had malfuncti.oned. Traci contacted TRACOR, initiating the maintenance process. Initial analysis indicated. "routine" maintenance was necessary.Additionally, during FAA's move into the new tower facility, diskpack reader cables and tape read �heads sustained damage. TRACOR performed on-site mai.ntenance, but nearly the entire month of flight tracks were unrecoverable. During this downtime, TRACOR upgraded ARTS interFace software, and Traci altered ANOMS importing routines. All ma.intenarice issues are now resolved, and complete, accurate flight track data. is expected after May 15, 1996. This incident lughlights the program's dependence on radar data. Not only are operati.ons counts impossible without flight tracking information, but the various noise analyses are also impossible to complete because each one requires flight track correlation. ANSP staff are currently investigating "direct connect" options for radar data. retrieval: This system is more relia6le than diskpack readers, less labor-intensive for FAA personnel, and designed to accommod.ate the anticipated. changes in ART5 software, expected over the next five years. We apologize for this Technical Advisor's Report inconvenience, and tha.nk you in advance for your cooperation. is �� - . -•- - t��r : Minneapolis / St. Paul Intemational Airport 'r MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan A' ort Sound Abate u'P ment Counc�l cna„�„oR Robert P. Jo6nson �ee Clnirman: soon s�n Techniml Adv'vor. la6n Foggin . Secre[ary: I�n Dei�6bn Air6nrne Fr�r.rs: Briau Batp .iir Tmmporf Araocinfian: Pmil McGraw ALPA: Churin W. Curry In c;ry ojatoomtrtgroa: Pe1mm Lee Vern Wi1oo= ctry �a�;n�: J� xw�. c;ry yr'Eogan: Tom F,gim City qjlmerGroveNeightt: nele anmmous City efMendotaHeightr: Jtfl 9mith � City cfMfnneapoJi.r: J�ce & Serein id�n Iuchter Joe I.ee JudiW DodQe City ofRicl�efd: Gax�e Kamas Dou I'rle6e c,ry �sr.tvu;.,ra,t: x� aa�.. c;y �{sr.ra„t: s�a m� c�c.w�„d� Card Ann MeGutro Delfn AirLi�.tlnc.: Ridt K'idwdl Fedanl F.rp�era; T� x�aa«� Fedeml Aviatton Admini.rhntion: Bruce Wagoner x�a cm� MAC Slaf/i Didc Adn: MBM: Robert P. Ja6nsm MeraG, xa.Navur Afauat: I.ewe'ence McCabe MehvpolitanAirposLt Commu�ion Commirimcr Allon Gaepa� MNAirNa8onal Gtnd: M1�or Mort a. Na. -. NorthwutAirlira.f: nta�t s�m ��ra s� S1. Pau1 Clambrr of Camnerty: i� �� Sun Counlry Atrlirar: Lulce A. ('.oa�es United Airlinn Irc.: Allan Tomlineaa United PamlService: siNa w�a. r�. mu� US. Air Force Ruerve: caPm� s�m c�,n US. Supplementa( Carrten: � anu� MetropoGtan Airports Commission Declaration oF Purposes 1.) Promote public welfane and nadonal security; serve public interest, convenienoe, and necessity; promote air navigation and iransportation, international, national, state, and local, in and tl�rough this state; promote the efficient, safe. and econamical handling of air cammerce; assure the inclusion of this state in nafional and international Progc'ams of air transportadon; and to those ends to develop tt�e full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this stake as an aviadon center, and to correlate that area with all aviatiaai facilities in the entire state so as to prrnide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assune the residents of the metropolitan area of the min.imum environmental impact from air navigation and transpoitatia�n, and to that eud provide for noise abatement, conirol of sirport area land use. and otlier protective measures; and 3.) Proanote the overall goals of the state's envu'onmental policies and minimi�a � public's exposure to naise and safety hazards around sirports. Metropolitan AircraFt Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporadon was foimed in furtherance of the genexal welfare of the cammunities �Jo�B ��apolis-S� Paul lnternational Airnort - Woid-C�amberiain Fieid, a public airport in the County of Iiennepin, State of Minnesota; through the alleviati� of tl�e problems «+eated by the saund of sircraft using the sirport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis of tve pmblem and of suggesti� for the alleviada�n of ths same; rhrough inidadan, coordinaaon and promoti� of reasonable and effe�ave procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operakion of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents. and the users of the airport respecting the problem of sincraft noise m�isance and in respect to suggestions made and ackions . initiabed and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representadves appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory suthoriry and responsibility ar contcol aver the sirport, or by reasa� of their status as airport users. have a dire�t interest in the aperation af the sirport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, praviderl that the User Representa6ves and Public Represeutatives shall at all limes be equat in numbei; The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes iR Airpon activity, but pravides s public sounding board and airport information outlek The hotline is staffed 24-hours Monday - Friday This report is prepared and printed in house by Traci Erickson, ANOMS Specialist Questioas or comments may be directed to: MAC - Aviaflon Noise & Satellite Program MiMC8P01]S I$L P8111 IAf0tI18ltOd8�. AllpOf� 6040 28th Avenue South A�Iinneapolis, MN 55450 Tel: (612) 725-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310 ANSP Home Page: http://www.macavsatorR ._,.,�, �..,..�.��,.�,...u,,,.��...A.�...,�.��..,....��,�..,�,:�.,.��1_----- - .,.,,.,�.��„W.,�.�,�..�.m..4�--._--•--- Metropolf tan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Programs � Metropolitan Airports Commission ; � C�perat�on� anci Complaint Surnmary � _ Apri11996 _ _ . Operations Summary - All Aircraft MSP April F'leet Mix I'ercentage Airport April Compla�nt Summar� April Operations Summary - Airport Darectors Office Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission l��nneapolis - 5t. Paul Internat�onal Airport Complaint Summ�.ry ` Apral 1996 , Complaint Summary by City ::::':<::::::':�:��%:.:`5�.::::i;'`':��i;:�:::::::i::::r::::i��i;:::t<ii i�i::::�r:::�;.:`i::i:;i::;::::;;><:r:?`:..:5�:;:?i`� t':::::�:::.}>i�?::::::;::;:>:?;2:2:ir�ii'^:::$::�`i :':t��:�:��i=:i::,:::�::::i;'::;;::'::;::::::2::::::�?; .:3,�i,:?ii:'iii%:`.;i::iii;`:�';;'?=.''r`.i:.;:: i:;::i;:i � ::?;::::::?S:;i:::: i:::i::::i:::::;:::::i:::;: ly� /�i.yy�ari �;{y� }� ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::2 ��:.:iF7t :::::::: .:::....::.. .... ��;i��t;.\i;.::. :::.:......��iR�7t.:.......... ....��+ite ::i::::::i::i:::�::tii:i::::i::::::::::.�:::::.�•iii:i:>i:.>::.i:.iiiti:t.ii::4iiii ::si>ii:t..:::::Y..i. � ...:......... ....��....:... . . . .. .. :.. :............................. ...........:i............. ..:is ::i:.::.::::::.{::�::.:::�.� :::::::::::..�::::.�::::::w:::.�:::::::.�:: w:::::::::::::::::::::::::.�:::::: :.........................::.:.:.:.:..:..:..�::::::::::::::.�::::::::::: �:::::::::::::::��:...�......�.......`.;.. Apple �Ialley 2 11 13 2.1% Bloomington 1 10 11 1.7% Butnsville 0 24 24 3.8% Eagan 30 40 70 1 l.l% Edina 0 14 14 2.2% Hastings 0 1 1 0.2% Inver Grove Heights 24 60 84 13.3% Mendota. Heights 9 24 33 5.2% Minneapolis 84 24� 331 52.4% . Minnetonka 0 1 1 0.2% Mounds vew 0 •� 1 : 1 0.2% Oakdale 0 2 2 0.3% Plymouth 1 1 2 0.3% Richfield 1 15 16 2.5% Raseville 0 2 � 2 0.3% St. Louis Park 2 9 11 1.7% St. Paul 7 5 12 1.9% S. St. Paul 0 3 3 0.5% Wayzata 0 1 1 0.2% >`:>�:�:>:: �r�»>:>:::�»�::'`:'��<�>::::::><:;�:�:::::�: ::>:�::::<::;:::::::;::::...{..::;��`::>::::<<::::<:::;:: :�;::>��:::>::::::':� ��::`��.;'��<�::::>�:::;':;':::< ::::;>;>'::`::::'.�:;::::;p:.:::;:: :::>;::;;:»`:::"��I><:>:<��t::::<:�<:>::::r'::::� :::....... .....,..:..::. .:. �y � yg; ::.::.::.>:.:::;::::>:.:: ��>�::>::::::::>::::: .� ::::::::.:.:::::. i�y� ry ::`:<>::::>::<':::::>::::::; ::.................................................... .............�..��...:.;:::.:::.:.:�::.:.::.::::::::::..:...:::::::::::.::.�::<.::.:.>:.::.:: � :.:::.::.::.::.:::.:.:�::::::: . :: �:::�:>::::;<:::: ................................................::::::::.�::::::::::::::: .:::::::::::::::::::::::.:�:::::.�.�. ::::::::.::.:»��(:,�:.>:.::.::.::.::::. .>:.;:.Y.;:.::.>:.::•"•i: �.::::::::::::::. .:::»:.::.::.�VV�:.::.::.::.:::. Tlllle O� DS� 00:00 - 05:59 06:00 - 06:59 07:00 -11:59 12:00 - 15:59 16:00 - 19:59 20:00 - 21:59 22:00 - 22:59 23 00 - 23 59 � , � . .w ... Nature of Complaint Excessive Noise Early/Late Low Flyi.ng Structural Disturbance Helicopter Ground Noise Engine Run-up . �: Fre uenc q Y Page 2 Aviatioa� Noise & Satellibe Programs �_ A,.�ailable Tirtle for Run�vay Use ' Tower Log Iteports - Apri11996 Aii Hours <�'�::?;>Q�.:�!>':' ::.`::�::::��::;:::,::::: �. �'`,�`- Nighttime Hours Aviati� Noise c�. Satellibe Programs Metropolitan Airtwrts Commissi� ��`�� :::::::�:��i::::>: Page 3 � � � p � � � . � . � . � � ' � � ► , � � . � MEETING A�tLTTES Nlay 21, 1996 The May meeting of the Northern Dakota. County Airport Relations Coalition (NDCARC) was called to order at 7:35 a.m. at Mendota. Heights City Ha11. Presidi.ng over the meeti.ng was Scott Beaty, Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission, with the following representa.tives present: Mendota Heights: Ellsworth Stein and Kevin Batchelder; Eagan; Mike Schlax; Sunfish Lake: Mayor Frank Tiffany; Mendota. and Inver Grove Heights were not represented. The minutes of April 16, 1996 were approved. DISCUS5ION OF AIRPORT NOISE liRITIGATIQN I'LAN Those present had a discussion about the MSP Mitigation Committee recently formed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to address noise mitigation with an e�cpanded MSP. Mayor Tiffany inquired if Sunfish Lake was appointed to the committee. They are not members of the MSP Mitigation Committee. The coalition discussed mitigation options that could be considered for agreement by the coalition. Mr. Schlax and Mayor Tiffany mentioned the narrowing of the corridor. Mr. Beaty mentioned that the conversion to all Stage III aircraft and night time restrictions, or night ti.me protection, were mitigation options he felt the coalition could agree ta Mayor Tiffany reminded the coalition that Dakota County, in their resolution opposing a new airport in Dakota County, resolved to assist northem Dakota. County with noise mitigation. The coalition discussed approachi.ng Dakota. County for assistance and to follow through on their resolution. The coalition discussed property value guarantees, tax credit programs, and housing revitaliz,a,tion as appropria.te mitigation measures. Mayor Tiffany inquired if the Mayors/Administrators of the coalition should work toward developing a joint plan. Mr. Bea.ty sta.ted the NDCARC should focus an opera.tional changes at MSP and a more equitable distribution of air noise. He stated Runway 4-22 should be used more. Mr. Bea.ty stated that Global Positianing Satellites (GPS) could be used to shr�nk the corridor, however, we should be cautious that the iive mile approach is conti.nued as a pra.ctice for arrivals. NDCARC May 21, 1996 minutes Page two Mayor Tiffany proposed that MAC and MASAC be restructured to be more community oriented. �Ie felt the requixement for 50 % industry representa.tion was unnecessary. Those members of the coalition present agreed that the structure and pmcess for Noise Mitigation efforts should be an issue to advocate and that both MAC and MASAC should be more representative of the airport's neighbors. The coalition decided tha.t each member city should bring its list of mitigation efforts to the next meeting, so that the coalition could explore which items it could agree to support as a group. The coalition would then discuss Dakota. County participation and support. 1' 1 1 �� 11 1 Mr. Scott Beaty sta.ted that Mendota. FIeights was becoming concemed tha.t the total percentage Stage III operations, on a monthly basis as reported in the Technical Adviser's report for MASAC, have been decreasing since September of 1995. He inquired if Northwest or MAC had any commitments that backsliding would not occur. � The coalition discussed a joint letter to MAC about backsliding and requested that Mr. Batchelder and Mr. Hohenstein work on drafting a letter for next month's meeting. �. Then each community could present this letter at MASAC. NEXT MEETING The next meeting is scheduled for June 18, 1996 and it is the City of Mendota's turn to host. Mr. Batchelder is to contact Mayor Toye. The coalition requested that the minutes from each meeting be mailec� in advance of the meeting with a notice of the upcomuig meetuig. CI'I'Y iTPDATES The City of Eagan's Airport Relations Commission is working on their list of items for the MSP Mitigation Comnnittee. The City of Mendota Heights is attending the MASAC Operations Committee meeting on May 24,1996 to review the Noise Abatement Departure Profiles be3ng recommended by MAC. Mendota FIeights is concerned about the base data being used for the recommendation. Mr. Mike Schlax stated that he could arrange tours of the NATCO facility where NWA has simulators and the Noise Abatement Departure Pro%les could be simulated. Mr. Schlax would call coalition members to notify them of appropriate times. - NDCARC May 21, 1996 minutes Page three I 1 � I: ► There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Batchelder � City Administrator Mendota Heights r. � C. , .. ..� nnn-r .�cn � � • � � , � QUARTERLY PROJECT STATUS (end of Maroh 1996) NUMBER OF HOUSES & DUPLEXES PRQlECT STEPS � 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Completed Ncpuiskbns '� � Canpleted Relocatbro � Vacated Propartlas � Housea Movad Housea DamoUshed IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIf111111111111111111Bi1111111111111111111111111111111111111 FUNDING AND 12; 1996: Closings will begin duly 8, 1996 through OPEN HOUSE FOR PHASE IV �October 14, 1996, and retocarions will begin July 8, � . 1996 through April 7, L99'7. This schedule is an Due to the lack of federal grant money at this rime, MAC is providing its own fiwds for Phase IV and is expecting to be reimbursed by the FAA in the near future. MAC is funding Phase IV in order W keep the project movittg to purchase all single family homes and duplexes in the project. Phase N includes three blocks in New Ford Town (16, 17, & 1S) and three blocks ui Rich Acres (19, 20, & 21). An open house to kick off Phase N, was sponsored by MAC and WDSCO at the Richfield City Hatl on 'Thursday, April 11, 1996. Approximately forty-five (45) households were represented at the meeting. '`�mbers of the City of Richfieid, MAC, and l )SCO, were available to answer homeowner and tenant quesrions. Informationa! handouts were provided for Phase N. The response to the open house and the comments about Phase I, II, and III, were very positive. WDSCU would like to thank all those who attended Our staff enjoyed meeting with each of the homeowners and tenants who attended, and look forward to working together. If you were not abla to attend this Phase N open house meeting or should you have additional questioas, please .contact the WD5C0 office and any of the Consultants or Project Managers can assist you. PHASE IV SCHEDULE A dmeline for Phase IV has been prepazed. T"his will help homeowners in Priorides 16 through 21 know the time&ame of events thai wili be taking place tluoughout the buyout process.. Homeowner norifcarion will•begin April 22, 1996 through May 20, 1996. Initial interviews will begin April 29, 1996 through June 24, 1996. Appraisais will begin May 20, 1996 through July 29, 1996. Review appraisals will begin June 3, 1996 through August 5, 1996. Relocatioa comparable studies will begin �"�e 10, 199b through August 26, 1996. Offers will `.made beginning June 17, 1996 through August estimate af time only; MAC and WDSCO will make every effort to stay withia this rime&ame. WDSCO is currently negotiating contracts for Phase IV subconiractors, and expects fo have them completed soon. T'rile Comnanies: T'he Phase N title cpmpany selected is North Staz Titte. North Star Title has provided the title service requirements as well as excellent quality standards for all three Phases. This company is very familiar with the closing procedures for both acquisition and relocation. Annraisal and Environmental FYrms: The appraisal firm of Lyle Nagell Company has been selected W perform the appraisal work for Rhase N. This company completed the review appraisa! certifications for Phase I and Phase II, and also completed the field appraisal process for Phase III. BCL Company, a highly regarded local appraisal firm, will be the review appraiser for Phase N. BCL Company was the review appraiser for Phase III, and did an excellent job. The environmental firm of (PSI), Professional Service Industries will remain as the subcontractor to complete all interior and exterior environmental inspection. Comprehensive Valuation Services, Inc. a certified home inspecrion firm, will conduct all D.S.S. inspecrions as required to meet relocation requirements Por all replacemeat homes. They have performed the D.S.S. inspections in previous phases. . � DEMULITION AND ASBESTOS ABATEMENT Bids for the second round of demotirion and asbestos contracts were opened on April 16, 1996. The numbers for all bids received were very close. The Part 150 Buyout Update is a newsletter by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and W.D. Schock Company, Inc., containing information on the MSP Land Acquisirion and Relocarion Projects. T'he low bidder must first receive contract approval through the MAC Planning & Enviranment Committee before work can begin. The work is scheduled to begin in early June. The contract is for one year, this means that the demolition work will conrinue throughout 1996. It is estimated that about (50) buildings will be demolished under this contract. As houses become vacant, the schedule for demolition which wil( be done in small groups, will be given to the contractor. NEW DUMPSTER POLICY/SITE New Dumnster Policv: MAC and WDSCO have noticed a sharp increase in the usage of the dumpsters on Saturda.ys. Iacidentaliy, there are fewer homeowners moving out at this time. Much of the increased dumpster use can be attributed to individuals from outside the Project area Despite increased efforts to identify and restrict use to homeowners living in tha Project area, outsiders are still able to dump their unwanted belongings. These outside individuals aze either accompanied by friends who are still residents of the project, former residents with old identification, or dumping after hours. MAC and WDSCO will be modifying the dumpster service to have more control over who is dumping their unwanted belongings. WDSCO wit! be placing dumpsters inside garages of vacant properties: Residents w6o are vacating Weir property wiu be ailowed access to the securEd dumpster location by appointmeu� Eiomeowners will need to contact the WDSCO otiice (�24-8898) t%o schedute a drop-Off Nme and location. Appointments must be made with WDSCO during the hours of 8:00 am - 5:00 p.m. Monday - Friday. WDSCO will make arrangements with the property management wmpany to meet the homeowner at the site. This policy witl allow us to better monitor who is dumping and what is being dumped. It will also reduce the amount of hazardous materials thai are being illegatly dumped. In addi6on, it will give homeowners more opportunities during the week to access the dumpstec This new poticy will be effective May 6, 1996. f' W. D. SCHOCK COMPANY, INC • � 5844 28TH AVIr;.NUE SOUTH I—'MIrQ�EAPOLIS,, MN 55417 (612)724-8898 (800)260-7062 THE CTI'Y OF RICHFIELD RECREATION PROGRAM The City of Richfietd Recrearion Division is requesting your input. The summer pazk programs throughout the community wil! be starting soon. Richfield Recrearion needs to know how many chitdren in Rich Acres and New Ford Town, ages 6- 12, are planning to participate in this summer's pazk program. Please cali Richfield Recrearion before Wednesday, Mwy 8, at 861-9385 to let them know if your children will be involved in any summer programs. If you have any questions regarding summer programs, please feel free to ca(l the Richfield Recreation Division. PIiASE IIII: ACQUISITION AND , RELOCATION I. Acauisition Closin�► Undate: As of April 25, 1996, there has beea a total of fifty- nine (59) acquisition closings conducted for those homeowners in Phase III. The acquisition closing process for this Phase is 88% completed. II. Relocation Closin� Undate: As of this April issue of the Buyout Update, forty- six (46) Phase III hameowners have closed on their relocation homes. The Phase III relocation closing process is now 69% completed. As of April 25, 1996, thirty-four (34) Phase III properties have been vacated. The Phase III vacating process is now 51% completed. RUNWAY 4ZZ EXT. CONSTRUGTION UPDATE Although delayed somewhat this spring by a winter that just wouldn't give up, the runway 4-22 extension project is once again uaderway in earnest. Concrete removal and earthwork are the main elements of construction right ' now. Shafer contracting expects to expand their daytime operation commencing Wednesday; April 24th to two 12-hour shifts. There will be ao work scheduled from 11:OU p.m. Saturday nights through '7:00 am. Monday morning. If the weather cooperates, the project is andcipated to be completed by mid-September, 1996. �_.___-- -.-7 ,v--a .,,.,�_✓., `: . : �;h�.: � �aEAA •�K,.-"" a"1"'.�.::: x O •(;l.L.��Jir': �: � ` .� j.�, � :,;� : r�I� � G � . 21 ��(�j�� -�... .4 \ K -'�� Y m w ..�I��•��Wt{ \N� \� N.9.� ea� ic i <y. r1 L__.�.._. 1.. � Tom Lawell - 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Hghts, MN 55118 \ "i'e„""'o„""„"„t"�,,,,,"a e„""�"r"'e' eo,"e"""' �o„"m„" �� MAY 1996 � � „ ; ISSUE 29 1�E./�� VYOU� ��.�� - . - Final planning for the 6th AucBon to be held June 27, 1996, ' is nearing completion. Further details will be provided ia subsequent newsletfers. BIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIIII�IIIIm111111111111111111t111111111111�IB111111111111 PHASE IV INITIAL INTEAVIEWS BEGIN The initial interview process has begun for those homeowners who are in Phase N. The date of the initial interview will be the "oiiicial start date" for the homeowner's acquisiiion and relocation process. The interview will give the WDSCO team an opportunity to meet each homeowner, explain the time frame for the acquisition and relocation process, and answer any questions the homeowner might have. As of May 23, 1996, (46) homeowners have been contacted and (42) initial interviews have been conducted. There are (18) homeowners remaining to be contacted and (22) inifial interviews to be made. LOOHING FOR A REPLACEMENT HOME i WDSCO would like to stress again to each homeowner the importance of waiting until their written offer has been presented, before signing a purchase agreement on a replacement home. The written offer con'sists of two parts. The acquisition offer is based on the Appraised Certified Value; this value is determined by the review appraisal. The relocation offer contains the replacement housing payment, as well as your moving e�ense payment. Uniil the written offer is presented, the exact dollaz amount the homeowner will have to apply towards a new home will not be determined Also, a definite time frame for the acquisition closing or a possible relocation closing date cannot be determined until the offer meeting. Every effort will be made by WDSCO to accommodate each homeowner's needs. Please be aware that certain time frames aze necessary for WDSCO and MAC to foIlow. WDSCO and MAC need at least 30 days to order fimds for your relocation closing. If, as a homeowner, you make the decision to sign a purchase agreement and set a closing date prior to your written offer, WDSCO cannot guarantee the funds will be available by your relocation closing date. "'�u will need to contact your WDSCO team when �, ✓�ing a purchase agreemeni on yow replacement home, should you have any questions. It is important to inciude the following "Subject to" statements on the purchase agreement £or your replacement home: 1) Subjectto a successful closing with MAC on your current home; and 2) Subject to an acceptable DSS (Decent, Safe, and Sanitary) inspection. A copy of the signed purchase agreement oa the relocarion home should be forwarded to your WDSCO team consultant as soon as possible. This will allow WDSCO to order the DSS inspection on the chosen home, and insure relocation funds are obtained from MAC which will allow for a smooth and timely relocation closing. The D.S.S. Insnection: D.S.S. means decent, safe, and sanitaxy. This' inspection is scheduled and paicl for by WDSCO, once a proposed replacement dwelling has either been purchased or leased. All purchases or leases are subject to an approved D.S.S. inspection. If a dwelling does not meet D.S.S. codes, all repairs must be completed prior to any replacement housing payments being disbursed to a homeowner or tenant. The inspection is completed by local certified inspectors: Each inspector completes a checkiist of basic requirements that insure the replacement dweliing meets the federal standards for a decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling. Flease be awae�e that the D.S.S. does nat take the place of a city code compiiance, or a complete home inspection repor� T6e D.S:S. is specifically designed for federal relocation requirements oniy. The D.S.S. inspection is a limited inspection of the property. DEMOLTTION The contractor for the first round of the demoliiion has almost completed the finai work on the effected sites. The recent work included removai of drivaways, garage slabs, and sidewalks, which were difficult to remove in the winter. Final work to complete the first round, includes general clean-up Iri;:. �'�ei l�r) l?lil'uti1'llii:'<...-,: ._ :<T:C`.VS�ci...c:: Ii}' iilt; i\tci::OjJOi?il:..[i r�'.:��tiiii� C,OlI1ST11SSI0II 'u7.'� �'��.%�. Schock Company, Inc., containing informabion ott the MSP Land Acquisition and Reloca#ion Projects. r' - aircraft noise is lowered - rate of ciimb is reduced - aircraft accelerates - flaps retracted on schedule • Upon clean up of aircraft (approximately 2.8 miles from runway end) - reduce thrust to quiet EPR - maintain VZF - continue climb • Upon reaching 3000 Feet AGL (normally 6'/z to 7'/ from runway end) - apply climb thrust - accelerate to 250 knots - continue climb as per ATC clearance CLOSE-1N NADP: • The first 1000 feet of climb is the same as the distant NADP. " � At 1000 feet AGL (approximately .75 mile from runway end) - reduce thrust to climb thrust - adjust pitch to maintain V2 + 10 knots (slight nbse down) • Aircraft will climb at a steeper angle, but requires more power to maintain appropriate airspeed • At 3000 feet AGL (approximately 9 miles from runway end) - lower nose of aircraft to accelerate C - retract flaps on schedule as aircraft accelerates - upon clean-up of aircraft, accelerate to 250 knats - continue climb as per ATC clearance D/STi4NT VS. CLOSE-1fV NADP: • Both procedures produce the same profile from beginning of takeoff roll to 1000 feet AGL. • At 1000 feet AGL, the Close-in NADP and Distant NADP start to differ: - C�CI se-in Even though thrust is reduced to "climb thrust", an airspeed of VZ + 10 knots is maintained. Flaps remain extended at takeoff setting. Aircraft climbs at a steeper angle, but requires more power (climb thrust) to maintain airspeed. Di n Aircraft nose is lowered. As aircraft accelerates, flaps are retracted on schedule. 2 When flaps are up, thrust is reduced to "quiet thrust", and aircraft pitch adjusted to maintain appropriate airspeed (VZF). AT 3000 FEET AGL Clos�n Di�tant Nose of aircraft is lowered to allow acceleration of aircraft Fiaps retracted as aircraft accelerates After aircraft is cleaned up, accelerate to 250 knots and ciimb on schedule Appiy climb thrust Accelerate to 250 knots Ciimb on schedule Based on manufacturer's data and performance engineer's calculations, the profiles on flex thrust and full thrust are essentially the same. The information stated above is reflected in the DNL contours. Frorn the final NADP analysis which included validation of each procedure by aircraft type, Chairman Salmen stated that the best overall recommendation is the Close-in departure off Runway 29UR, and Distant departure off all other runways. Population analysis for DNL 60, 65, 70, and 75 by community was analyzed for the Distant and Close-in departure profiles. The number of dwellings do coincide with the population count. Chairman Salmen relayed that the analysis shows the Close-in procedure is best for Runways � � 29L/R and the Distant procedure minimizes total population inside the contours on all other runways. Jo� Hohenstein, Eagan, relayed that he felt testing of'the.profiles should be dane. Roy Furhrmann reiterated that ANOMS will continue to monitor and assess differences between the Distant and the Close-in procedure. ANOMS �data is explicit enough to ascertain impacts. Ron Glaub, FAA, mentioned there may be a problem with mixing p�ocedures on parallel runways. Roy Fuhrmann responded that staff will inquire into other airports using mixed procedures. Bob Johnson. MBAA moved and Charles Curry ALPA c�c.nn�Q� +� recommend to MASAC the "Distant Communitv DeQarture Profile" utilization on Runwa�rs 11 L/R and Runwevs 4/22 and that �he "Close-in Community D�parture Profile" utilizatian on Runways 29UR A vote was taken and passe� by a ma�orit�rule (�5 ves 2 nav) . John Nelson, Bloomington, voted yes contingent upo� staff supplying multiplication factors used to determine population and dwelling counts for the �espective communities. MAC staff in conjunction with HNTB, will make this determination and .report findings at MASAC on May 28, 1996. / � i�`C��- >- � --�-e,��.,, u� � o ,1 �� j�-� C.'�� — z . � e--,�--��-�--c.�._.:� �� 3 , .�a-�'�-- � John Neison also asked staff to present an implementation time line to MASAC, and continue ( pressing forward on the issue. � The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Jean Deighton Committee Secretary 4 � O O O O � O O O O o � 0 � il . � 0 ca a ¢ U o � O O � � 7 '[J W O a C I v N O U �a•r-��-iew\��+o��vzsss i 1 • ► � � O O O o a 0 0 o O o � � 11 � 0 � <C V O � 0 0 ui aW'�>-1�V�-Y6\i�lP\7PZSLS I� � MSP -1994 POPULATION COUNTS (DISTANT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES) MSP -1994 POPULATION COUNTS (CLOSE-IN DEPARTURE PROCEDURES WITH IDENTICA� FIRST SEGMENI� MSP -1994 POPULATION COUNTS (COMBINATION DEPARTURE PROCEDURES WITH IDENTICAL FIRST SEGMENT� (CLOSE-IN DEPARTURE OFF OF RUNWAYS�9L &�qR, DISTANT DEPARTURE OFF AL� OTHER RUNWAYS) � _._._...------------ ----- , ---- - .��un�.�� an� �—�� ' ��.� - �.,�:�:: . � Q.'. � �yy r-«F�Z 4A.�:+�#,.�p: • ' � .. �.� .� � . . � . �+r..z . ;� � �: . . ' . � . : � � . .. � . q�� . :. ' . -^ � � « . . . .. .^ � ��[ \ � .,:,�>:.,,; .Y;.�.—„ _ _ ";¢' �=:,�. �,;} � � , � , �,:..,,....>._ •4 •, .�...,. . , '`�°"'� �,�'n""b„�� .� .'� �w """ i •�� 'y . , ..a'�.� `�'�. � . x . , � . . �-5. - 'z � � _ � ', t��'y: �t p". � . : .. r � � � t . � /�5.,,..,,yy�� • � �VJ^H�� T [ . � � � � . ,� . •• •• •� ' j . , .•qw�..v u�- f�k� .�: •� T: . ' . �� ..:,. � w . � �-'""�....'� � .�y . �` . ( r�} : e ' . L2' `.^+w�ra+. �#��6/ . . '�' . . , . .'...� . t � t ' y^ f .._'4 f �i� t{. . . � �•-•,�.'tz'..z�, � 't'F,� :4 t � t a wql�f ^ �. .` ;t� , £� � • . � �. K : � �. � ;y � � ; . ' ' . y ^'� y h �. •. � C� '. I. . O�r T t'� : 1 '• t ,or� � t S E ; �� s t�r^+ � ' � yA � F�� ` � � . ..'. .. _.,,�:: . � s � � (�� i- � : tt, � . . . " a ��I � � �`�P. .. t� . ` .S< e�, i . a > . � i � . i �'.9::.'�.�� . , t . , � � � � � L � SY- �3�� , ,s s ,� m. . , ��, � ,, a .-� ■, � C ,. . � . �i � �a` . � a� . � ''y c :. � ' � � � < �M►'" :. � 1 . > Y ' . �: f Y . . � s�. � �� • :'"'�"�"�,'�.` f� . , Y�f `^� i . q�q : � . , � .-n c. . r a • x�� J< � � iJ�.•. t �. ;, '=;... .. :. . � ' 'S.w;•`� , r,•'�'.' F 'h \ . . L �y�y'J�� . t • •t � t • H)f . . i!' : { • � . ,tf �^St. ' . � h�.^'t��l'a� C} + '��µ.A ��I o �/ ., . = S�r<�� . � �:� ++ .� . ;°�'"` ,�r s ... . ,'�� .k'k.+RMaa � . ' Y'�i�ti".. '{S�'i`_�''-�.iR''Q. � "r,�.� ... .,... -' •• � n z� .. ''_`. t �` { ��•u�:'� w'�: � '� � ;LM '�:� : M.: • .�� . t 1^`.]++ w. .'}.''.': : . .. : ' � ' \ '. •: i : , . ...... ��t'.�� ` :x �' : .�.. � , � � i . 4 . : � .� � .� � Q. c . . r. '.! - � � C' • : � . �:. �:� � �.:� y*}s�E �: &`t'��rs,..... -,.��:�. '. � . .. ' ; �. �� . . . _ •- `�' � � �a,.xr,...- �. "� . .. . . � � . � . � _. �'+.�-. � � ; . � . �, ', '��~, . : . t . .. '. �� .. �' ... " ` ` - ''..• . . . .�-..-..,�5-�� . � . . _ � ��' ? , . . ': '..' , �� T�I �. �f�� ' � . ,. . . ?�N .� � � ��. � ' : � �� ~ . . , . .. .. . .- ,�a�,.. ,�Y�... :. ,.: 1.:�' �. :. �. ��.<'� � � � . .. A'��; �� ' :2Y .. .. �. 71 0 � , � Q � �� . : ' ...,. �:. � . :•.: � :. .. :. _ ' S'_""' _ ' }• �. . . � ' • . ;. �„ � � �t ,�.. ...r � y ' ' : � . � ' :' :: �,...::� . .. • .�.. ,� .. � .... r'-�"'-'`'.�.�'' - r .' .. ... � . ,�. - .o::;: .�� . � � .. . . . �' � � �: . ; �, � �� , , �n� �� . . � : {;:;�; �; � � � :`� �,. � ' . :-.:�..�. ,- ... .... . . � � i ;=�w �::�::��;�.<::W:.:> :�;:,::��. '; � � � �, .. ..... ..... ...... .... o p :.::.. .�,. �, � . ..,: �: _ � � ,;,,, r""�,,,..�,;..- �:-�.:�.....�... •-.�. :............ . I�� ...�=:_.: _:. T ^. Vs! y�a/ � �� .. !� �� ... _ - _��;��r� / ��: '�.;.��;-:_-_ = s -- _ -�. .::_,: :�:.�: � t� � ,-�- ��. � �:.:�.� �('. .. � d �:.-� � �� i � f �r��i 15 S t � � . . ,��•�{�w�...: r, � _ -- � .... _ ... r c- r" < .... r` i�ri�..' - � ''�»'�" .r �.m ~W _""r.'� «�: �_, �� .:�-.� _ �y �r�,•t,.,�a � .-....:...�_..: �+rw � � . ' �`�'�...« . . �c�.:�Y1R�u.. y': r . ...:'._..._._ �f� �. r .� - ..L�wY'�a�� a o � ?,�ia� ��a� 7 C� I..�'� � �...� _..___.�__._ - �--� : � �._�-.. a:a..s-_�........�..' �. � AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT gtELATIONS COMMISSION EAGAN, MIrfNESOTA CITY CO�TNCIL CHAMBERS EAGAN CI�'Y �-IElI,i. 1Vday 14, 1996 7:00 P.M. .� � , ��, � � �, II. APPROVAL OF 1ViiTfU�'ES iII. VISITORS TO BE HEARD IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor Compliance V. NEW BUSINESS � A. Noise Compatibility Policies VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. WORKSHOP REPORT VIII. STAFF itEPORT A. Itunway 4/22 Extension B. MASAC Meeting of April 23 C. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition �., X. FUTURE AGENDA iy �,,..- XI. NEXT CO1ViMISSION MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Z'uesday, June 11 NEXT COMMISSION WORKSHOP - 7:00 p.m. Thursday, May 23 NEI�'i' MASAC MEETING - 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 28 XII. ADJOURNMENT Ar�iliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aic� AGENIDA WO1tKSHOP MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA CONFEERENCE ROOMS 2A & 2B EAGAI�T CI�"Y HALL May 23, 1996 7:OQ P.M. ��, � • �� t. �ii. =JI�i i v� Y�' r'i� i�tiIir'� III. AII�PORT EXPANSION IVdITIGATION - ALTE1tNATIVE N(DISE ItELIEF MEASURES IV< NIGI�T TIME OPERATIONS - SHOTJ�.IDER HOURS iT. OTHER BUSINESS Vi. NEXT COMIVIISSION MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, June 11 NEXT WORKSHOP MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Thursday, June 20 NEXT MASAC MEETING • 7.30 p.m. Tuesday, May 28 Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid A�ENDA � REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION EAGAN, MIrfNE507C.� CITY COUNCIL CHAlVIBE1tS EAGA,N CITY HALL . June 11, 1996 7:0(1 P.M. " .� � , �� , � �. II. AP'PROiTAL OF MINUTES III. �SIT4adS T4� BE I-€�ARID IV. OLD BIJSINESS A. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles B. MSP Airport Expansion - Mitigation Tools V. NEW BUSINESS A. Noase Compatibility Policies VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. WORKSHOP REPORT VIII. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor B. Runway 4/22 EActension � C. MASAC Meeting of April 23 D. Northern Dakota County A,irport Relations Coalition E. Part 150 Sound Insulation Program IX. INFORMATYVE X. �"U1'iTRE AGENIDA XI. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 9 NEXT COMMISSION WORKSHOP - 7:00 p.m. Thursday, June 20 NEXT MASAC MEETING - 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 25 XII• ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance nodce of at least 96 hours: If a notice of less than "96 hours is receivec� the City of Eagan will attempt io provide such ai� ,.::... .,... . y;� _ ` f,.,; .:�c... ', ' '; ::: 1 � i� � �>. SOUTH METRO AIRPORT ACTION COUNCIL MAY 1996 ,�`. i 1' 1` 1' i'� 11 I �' 1 by Dean Lindberg ... could keep my fellow SMAACkers from showing and testify'ing at the end- less hearings held these past recent months. In defiance of record cold this January, we turned out to tet the MAC Irnow our reactions to the Drafl Envi- ronment Impact Statement at Washburn High School. We gave over two hours of testimony in addition to our written responses to the MAC's study. Our quesrions ranged in scope from the safety ofthe North/South runway -(although the FAA says the wncept is ( easible, they have not yet finished thcir studies and approval), to the wisdom of bulldozing a 24 block area of Lake Nkomis to make way for "hotels and other airport related businesscs" ifthc ternunal is moved to the airport's north- west corner. In March, the IVrnneapolis City Council allowed us to again plead our case be- fore taking their positions on the airport According to council memUcr Dennis Schulstad the testimony was "as power- ful and moving ...sincere and heartfelt" as any testimony he has heard in his years on the city council. When the call to testify was issued one week before the city council hearing. there were two sure votes aga'rnst expansian. ff only we had another week to plead our case. Oh well, on to thc legislature. SMAACKers and friendsbegan endless trips to the state capitol in �nrly March ` ,b testiiy to the legislature. The first Jhearing was the Senate Metropo(itan and Local Government Af�nirs Commit- +,,�: ct;::i�c:c'. E....;:�;; `,`i.:� •. , ."�!?r� — --, A familiar siie in the South Metro Are� waiting for hours of tesrimony by the paid "suits" (MAC, Metropolitan Goun- cil, Northwest Airlines (NWA) execu- tives and Wisconsin politicians) we were atiowed to question the declining growth projections, the wisdom of stick- ing billions of dollars into the severely timited, existing MSP site and etc. Un- fortunately the minds of the legislators were already made up and they voted to move the biit along through further com- mittees. Representative Dee Long had the cour- tesy to al(ow those of us appearing with- out financial remuneration to testify ahead of those being paid by the hour for their efforts. An attempt at a roll-call vote was made to short circuit our testi- mony, fortunately that roli-call vote was thwarted and our testimony was taken. Although the bill eventually made it to the House and Senate floors, some of our testimony inspired amendments continued on �aee ? �TOISE t�FFECTS YOUR HEALTIi by Nei! Clark According to Dr. Floyd O. Anderson, a practicing psychiatrist in the Twin Cities, about I S percent of the general population aze cruelly affected by noise. That is, noise really does hurt them in a serious way. It af%cts the way they live and respond to other problems in tife. All of us secrete more adrenaline when exposed to loud sounds, and this can harm those who are wlnerable. This group of people are identified, for example, as being under high stress at work, having high blood pressure, in- somnia, depression or other chronic medical diseases. This goup is prone to serious health effects if subjected to ad- ditional disturbing aircraft noise. Some have been known to commit suicide or "go crazy" and shoot at airptanes. Over 400 medical reports and papers have been collected by Dr. Andersori to sup= port the thesis that aircraft noise is bad for people and for some it can be catas- trophic. He has tried, to no avait, for the past 12 years to be heard on this issue by members of the State Legislature and the Governor. The Minnesota Poliution Control Aeency supports his thesis. Around airports surrounded with open space, it was found that animals move away ta avoid the noise. This seems a natural respanse to a disturbance, but when people are trapped by their neigh- borhood investments and air naise in- creases gradually, the noise threshold to move for reasons of health is not ciear. Dr. Anderson suggests that with airport growth there will be an increase in air- port noise-related medical problems. continued on page 2 � .. . .,.---•-_...1.____..____--------.��___:-_.____._ . . .-------.......__.----------._..___._.__._ � 0 SMAAC NEWSLETTER Dean Lindberg con't from page I from Rep. Long's committee. One of those amendments blocks, as much as legally possible, the construction of a third parallel runway. The Senate Judiciary Committee pceferred hearing the "suits" over the regular citizens and roll-called foc a vote an the Dual-Track ending bill before our testimony was heard. Through that committee, the bill passed on to the Senate floor and from there through the legislature. I wactt to congratutate and thank alt the SMAACer's and sympathizers who faithfully took the time to attend and testify at these recent hearings. It is disappointing that our poGdcians chose not to take the tough questions surrounding our airport decision, and instead chose to pour millions more into aa airport with serious physical constraints to expansion. That's the way things go sometimes. As long as MSP continues to be located in the middle of one of the most densely populated areas in the state, we'il continue to make our concerns heard. Attend our annual meeting this May to hetp plan our activities for the next year Thanks for alt your support, Dean Lindberg, President SMAAC. Neil Clark con Y from page 1 The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) doesn't mind being cruel to peo- ple affected by the airport noise because these peaple have no power to affect MAC policy. In the Twin Cities area this amounts to about 5% of the poputation trying to be heard above the biggest, . nosiest business interests in the State. The MAC, in cooperation with North- west Airlines and other business inter- ests, have devised a practical scheme to keep these peaple &om armed revolt. They conduct highly technical studies and reports of airport busiriess and what is needed for the economic heaith of the region. They hold public hearrngs to an- nounce these needs and allow people to vent their rage. They have a"noise hot- tine" for peopie to cal( when really an- gry. All of this is merely a therapy for the population with no attempt to treat these complaints seriously. The affected people drift unnoticeably to the MAC drum-beat into a state of "learned help- lessness". This state is one way of cop- ing with the stress at the cost of motva- tion, creativity and work. Noise and airport expansion are quite se- rious to some people. Some 23 people were kitied by potice when they drove demonstrators off a runway in Japan. The airport was expanded anyway and the demonstrators dismissed as only be- ing "poor farmers". If in our democracy, a minority of the people are not given a real opportunity to participate in the pro- cess which affects their lives, it can be ca(led a tyranny by the majority. Perhaps civil disobedience is, after all, the only way to be heard. For many in our city, the sound damage is only a"nuisance". The MAC does not know and does not want to hear how serious rt can be.Dr. Anderson suggests that we are at a deci- sion point for ----.�� SMAAC. SMAAC has been unsuccessful in fighring for the implied rights of the minority of people suffering &om loss of property use if not for their health. The methods used by SMAAC have all heen polite and within the law and have, at every point, been defeated. He suggests that SMAAC now adverfise for some unfortunate person suffering clinical damage from aircraft noise aad sae MAC for damages. This would definitely get their attention since more law suits woutd be suggested by others similarly clamaged• Subjecting relatively large poputations to severe noise energy as a result of frequerrt aircraft over flights represents, in Dr. Anderson' view, a massive social experiment the outcome of wlrich is unknown, but could have serious consequences ta the health and happiness of our culture. However, consideration of � this issue is not on MACs' mission statement. Dr. Anderson is willing to screen victims for health problems caused by or worsened by sound poltution, and to participate in providing expert testimony. : C. `7Voise Affects Your Healtrh " ` . _,__..._.._...--- _--�--- --------------------....---._----�-----�._.—__.�_..-- SMAAC NEWSLET"TER _ , Page 3 — ._._. -----------, THE MISSING DEBATE by Frank Ario Northwest Airlines and the Metropoli- tan Airports Commission planned and lobbied a"BLTTZ" late in the 1996 Legislative Session. Senator Mondale directed the legislative inidative and the Dual Track Study was short circuited. The Legislative decision to e�cpand pre- serves Northwest Airlines (NWA) monopoly at MSP. It also means NWA wili not have to finance a new airport. More important! It put the Power To Control operating capacity at MSP in the hands of NWA. Who should deter- mine the capacity at MSP? The business community, fearfui of the cost and inconvenience of a new air- port, supported the Legislature's deci- sion. Is this shortsighted? Approximately $2.8 billion may be in- vested to rebuild MSP on 3,100 acres. (' ) A ban on land-banking has stopped the —' relocadon option. MSP will be rebuilt piece by piece. A Denver Airport offi- cial stated, "this procedure is more ex- pensive than building new". South Mnneapolis residents will have increased noise pollution and additional threats to their health and safety. What happens to their property values? A new North/South runway wil( add run-up and takeoff noise in South Min- neapolis as planes depart southward. This runway is being marketed by city officals as noise relief for South Nfin- neapolis. FA.A officials are under increasing pressure to relax their safety standards. The airlines and airport management ha.ve pressecl the issue of more capac- ity. The MAC is now installing a simul- taneous landrng procedure that com- promises safety for capacity. Acci- dents, congestion and delays wi(( prob- � ) ably follow from such intensive land �"' use. � Future buy-outs, relocation expenses and loss of property values were not written into the Legislative decision. South M'inneapolitans witl be held hostage. Who will assume responsibil- ity for compensating these losses? The MAC and NWA project a low growth scenario for air transportation at MSP. These projections are signifi- cantly in error after only three years. A more valid economic study was not made prior to the consultants' recom- mendations. Why the rush to judgment? Why was debate denied on issues of this magni- tude? Something isn't right! Samething does not make sense! The debate is missing!1! IN MEkIORiAM by Eileerr Scrilly South Metropolitan Airport Action � Council (SMAA,C) Vice President Loren i Simer died January 29,1996 at the age of 81 after suffering a severe stroke. ;, Mr. Simer had been an active ' member of SMAAC since its inception. ' In his battle against airport noise pollution he spearheaded SMAAC's efforts to get the Airport Noise and Operating Monitoring System. (ANOMS) instalted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). This system of 24 noise monitors azound the airport provides verification of harmful, intrusive airplane noise events measured in absolute terms (dbA). Mr. Simer founded the National Airport Watch Group (NAWG) to carry the fight against airport noise poliution to a national level. . FTis dedication and persistence shall be sorely missed. Our community owes him our gratitude for his untiring efforts on our behalf. NOISB Mi1'[GATION COMMiTTEF. NAMED by Dick Saurrders A sixteen member noise mitigation committee has been formed to plan new mitigation measures in cities surrounding MSP as a response to one part of the airport bill passed by the 1996 Legislature. The committee is charged with recommending ways to implement the proposed $185 million noise mitigation rneasure in the newly eligibte 60 Ldn noise contour af the three present runways "and any future runway developments". Findings are due to be reported to the L,egislature in September 1996. Heading the committee is MAC Commissioner Steve Cramer (Minneapotis). Other MAC Commissioners inclade John Himle (Bloomington}, Tommy Merickel (North Suburban) and Louis Miller (Dakota County). Also serving will be: Two members of the Metropolitan Council One representative of the Metro Area Sound Abatement Coun.cil (MASAC) One representative of Northwest Airlines Mayors of the eight affected cities : Minneapolis Bloomington Richfield Eagan Mendota Heights St. Paul Inver Gove Heights Burnsvilte. The first meeting is planned for early May. � �e 4 AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION PACE PICKS UP by Dick Saunders In the first five years of the dual-track study, spending on airport . improvements totaIed $63 million, or about $12.7 million a year. In 1995, the amount of contracts tet jumped to $77 million. And, there is another $190 million of possible projects under consideration for 1997 - 2001, an average of $38 million a year. At the same time, the MAC has invested $33 million of a budgeted $55 million in off-site noise mitigation programs, including the buyouts of New Ford Town and Rich Acres developments in Richfield. . If all elements of the $2.8 billion Concept 6 proposal are built, the rate of capitat spending could increase to an sverage of $120 million yearty between 200t and 2020. That's to keep up with a projected 27 percent increase in passenger traffic to 33 million per year by 2020 from 24 million in 1995. . Most important of the projects to be completed in 1996 or early 199? are the foUowing: * A$75 million upgrade of the Lindberg terminal approach roadways, skyways, ground transportation center and a 150-car increase in the underground garage capacity to be finished in August 1996; °` A$35 million modification of the Gold Concourse to create a federal inspection service center for international passengers and come cargo to clear customs, to be opened in November 1996; * An $11 million extension of runway 4/22, adding 2,700 feet to the southeast to provide an 11,000 foot runway for summer takeaffs by fully loaded Boeing 747's on international flights (faur per day), to be opened on comp(etion of noise mitigation mediation efforts by Richfield, Bloomington and Minneapolis; �. .. �^: ,:+!;,.� r. 9 A r�.,....t tower near 34th Ave. S. and Hw62, to be ready in late 1996 or early 1997 (paid for with FAA funds); * About $3 million in apron rehabilitation work between the Red and Blue concourses, to be completed in mid-October 1996. TotaL• $159 million. In the planning stages, but not yet committed for constcuction dates, are $200 million of works, including: - A $24 mitlion estimated remodeling of the Humphrey charter terminal, to add one gate for international flights and additional domestic charter traffic; - Up to $24 million for expansion of parking facitities east of the present gazages for 1,000 to 2,100 cars; - A $37 million renovation of runway l 1R/29L in the summer of 1997; � - An estimated $88 million for storm water coilection and treatment systems; - $15 million oftaxiway work; - $12 million for a holding/deiceing pad. Other major components of the 2010 expansion plan inctudes a new 8,000 foot north-south runway at an estima,ted cost of $140 million, up to 15 additional gates at the Green and Gold Concourses, widened Red and Blue Concourses, a stand-alone regionat airlines passenger facitity, taxiway improvements, relocated postal Faci(ities and fli,ght kitchen. Total cost for these improvements is expected to approach $i biltion by 2010. The ne� phase (2010 - 2020) is projected at approximately $1.8 billion. It inc(udes a new $1. t billion West Termina(, demolition of the present Lindberg Terminal, major modifications to the present concourses to allow aircraft parking on both sides, and a$400 mil(ion underground people-mover to transpart passengers from the West Terminal to the concourses on the east �ide. SMAAC NEWSLETTER GLOBAL POSITIONWG SYSTEM C TESTS BEGIN by Dick Saunders Preliminary testing of a sateltite- based global positioning system that will allow commercial aircraft a wider choice of landing and takeoff patterns began Apri! 15 at Iv�inneapolis-St. Paul Internationa( Airport (MSP). The MSP system, said to be the first of its kind in the world, "wiil give us technology necessary to deal with aircraft noise issues, airspace management and a variety of airspace capacity issues at about one-third the cost of competing technologies," said Jeffery Hamiel, executive director of NiAC. The HoneywelUPelorus Satellite Landing System (SLS-200) wil] enable aircraft to avoid long, straight line paths to runways by providing precise landing guidance for all types of approaches, including (in about three years) curved approaches, MAC said. This is seen as � helping decrease the frequency of flights and resulting noise in neighborhoods in those paths. "We'll have to wait and see," said Dean Lindberg, SMAAC President. "It appears to us as merety a way to'spread the misery' to more people." A MAC official noted that the earliest practical date of noticeable benefits is expected to be 2001-2002. The test period, emplo}nng a$250,000 local-area GPS ground station atop the airport garage and a Honeywell G-4 test aircraft, is expected to last approximately two months. Once FAA certification is received, trials of an associated Honeywell TracLink ground vehicle tracking system wi(1 commence. The systems require about $25,000 of on board insttuments to couple satel(ite signals with an aircraR's flight management and $ight guidance system to produce navigation information that � is accurate to within five feet horizontally and six feet vertically, according to MAC and HoneywelL � MAC noted that, so far, no airtine at MSP has committed to such an investment. ----�----�------ --�---_l_._.--� - ---�-----�----� i SMAAC NEWSLETTER THEY LET US DOWN � by Minneapolis City Council Member Dentris Schulstad One of We surprising and disappointing aspects of this debate was the strong support of 13th Ward Council Member Steve Minn for the construction of a new north-south runway as soon as possible. It's understandable that unaf%cted aeighborhoods would not comprehend the ramificadons of this runway, but Minn should lmow bet�er. His ward is impacted .. . and had he voted in opposition, the resoludon would have failed It's hard to understand how anyone could truly betieve that construction of an additional runway, specifically built to incre�se the number of pianes using das aicport, could reduce the noise in our neighborhoods. Some who suppott the new tvnway did so relying ia a"promise" &om MAC to never build a third parallei runway auy time in the future. I pointed out, and had t�e city atxorney co�rm during our debate, that there is absolutely no legal way to guarantee this provisioa The 2.8 billion dollar expansion will entrench the airport here. -- Consequently, when additional capacity is ( ) required, the only option witl be to build a ___ t6ird paraltet runway. Two hundc+ed residents appeared at a City Council public hearing to voice opposition to the norih-south rumvay. Dozens oiothers wrote letters of apposition. Senator Ranum, Representatives Wagenius, Garcia and Skoglund along with Council Member Mead and I led the opposition. We were joined by 13 of i S legislators and by Council Members Niland, Biernat, Herron and Dziedzic (who was out of town for the vote). In addition, both Airport Commissioners from Minneapolis supported our neighborhood. My sincere thanks to all of them. It 'rs too bad the Mayor and Council Member Minn (et us down. Mike Teegazdin, writing for the Nokomis Longfeltow "Messenger" adds that after sitting for two or three hours of testimony, the Mayor pulled out her previously prepared statement and read her explanation of support for the new runway. The Mayor feels the North/South runway, despite what had just been stated by the residents. would t ) help relieve airport noise and at the �" same time increase capacity. This was atso the position taken by a city task ,-_.:,, �_ . . ..,�-..,,. ��....:. IT�S NOT OVER YET by Mrnneapolis City Counci! Memberpore Mead It is very unfortunate that the 1996 State Legislature voted to add a new North- South runway to Mmneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. So is it time for the "for sale" sign? Not by a long shot! Not so long as terrific people like atl the members of SMAAC continue to take strong and active roles in this issue. This year, runway 4-22 will be extended. It has taken the transportation agencies a full 18 years of jumping through hoops to finatty construct that minor extension of an existing runway. In all likelihood, that 18 year effort wilI pale by comparison to the hoops the agencies would face in attempting to add an entirely new runway. wth continued strong grass-roots pacticiparion, I believe this airport will never be expanded. Let's look at the example set by the propased massive expansion of Interstate 35W. Eight years ago, the transportation agencies'told us it was too late to change their plans to add four more lanes in each direction of the highway. Today, they're hoping to add just one lane each way. That's a far cry from the "done deal" the agencies claimed was already in place eight years ago. * For us to succeed in the long run on airport issues, a11 of us need to be active with any one of us on an issue that's important to you, let us know that in no uncertain terms. * Please support and work with SMAAC, your neighborhood organization and elected officials you agree with to protect the interests of yourself, your family, your neighborhood, the City, the region and the State. Have a great Spring -the beginning of yet another "open window" season! � � s�vraac ANNUAL MEET[NG ANNOUNCEMENT �y is, is96 7:30 - 9:30pm MAYFLOWER CHURCH E. Diamond Lake Road & 35W Help Us Develop Dur 1997Action Plan AGENDA: * Review of 1995 H'ighlights * Election of Board * Setting Our Course for 1996 - 199� * Feedback Discussion on such issues as: (1) Should homes in the 60LDN zone be soundproofed? (2) What effect will airport expansion have on property values in South Minneapolis? (3) Ifthe North/South runway is built, what will be the noise effect on South M'inneapolis? (4) Can the City of Mnneapolis stop construction of a third pazallel runway? "�th the premature ending of the airport dual-track study, this will be a critical meeting to develop new strategies for the next one - three years," said Dean Lindberg, President of SMAAC. All members are urged to attend and participate in special feedback goups, as well as to elect five or six new board members. 'The board has committed to widening geographic representation and stronger networking relationships with other airport communities and legislators, Lindberg declared. In this context, the nominating committee is proposing the election of the following faur new members: AI Wellnitz, Btoomington Dick Saunders, Hale-Page-Diamond Lake Neighborhood Assn. Greg Bastien, Nokomis East Neighborhood Assn. Margaret Parsons, Hale Nominated for a new one-year term are present board members Dean Lindberg (president), Frank Ario (vice president), Eileen Scully (treasurer/nnembership chair) and Charles Mamer (secretary). Please plan to attend and bring a neighborl 0 Ttt�, AIRPORT BILL AT A Gt.nNCE � by Drck Saunders Here are the eleven key elements of the 1996 airport bi(1 introduced by Senator Ted Mondale (DFL, St. Louis Park) in earty January 1996 and signed by Governor Carlson Apri112 1996. The bill was debated by the Senate for about an hour on the Saturday before the session ended, passing 56 - 9. The House vote was 94 - 39. MinneapoGs Senators voting for the bill were: Carol Flynn (DFI,}, Carl Kroening (DFL), Larry Pogemiller (DFL) and Allan Spear (DFL). Voting against were Linda Berglin (DFL) and Jane Ranum (DFL) IvTinneapolis Representatives vating in favor were: Dee Long (DFL). Opposed were Karen Ctark, Lee Greenfield, Phyllis Ifahn, Myran Or6eld, Jim Rice, John Sarna, Wes Skoglund and Jean Wagenius a!1 DFL. Linda Wejeman (DFL) abstained. Ranum and Wagenius, with Flynn and Long, ted efforts to defer a vote on ending the dual-track study until the originally planned 1997 session. Mandale and Carison, under heavy pressure from Northwest Airtines and Dakota County interests, pushed for a decision in 1996. Key Parts of the bill ... I. Prohibits MAC &om building or acquiring land for a major new airport to replace MSP. But, long-rang planning to make the recommendations to the legisiature on the need for a new airport facilities is permitted. 2. Requires MAC to ban any aircraft not comptying with Stage 3 noise levels after December 31, 1999. 3. Requires MAC to develop a plan to divert the maximum feasible number of general aviarion flights from MSP to reliever airports. 4. Prohibits MAC from building a replacement passenger terminal on the legis(ative approval. 5. Requires MAC to negotiate a contract with each affected city by January l, 1997 preventing construction of a third parallel runway without the affected city's approval. If such a contract is not executed with each affected city by January 1, 1997, the MAC must spend 100 percent more for noise mitigation than it spent in the most recent priar year. (An "affected city" is one that would experience an increase in it's 60 Ldn noise contour area as a result of a third parallel runway.) 6. MAC must submit a report (not an environmental impact statement) documenting the afarementioned effects af its 2010 long-range comprehensive plan. Environmental effects of, and costs o� noise impacts, noise mitigation measures and land use comparability measures must be evaluated for 600,000, 650,000, 700,000 and 750,000 annual flights at MSP. 7. By February 15 of each year, MAC must submit an annual report to the legistature detaiting the number of passengers enplaned, number of opera.tions, cunent airport capacity, average length of delays and technological developments affecting aviation and their effect on operatians and capacity at MSP, campared with 1993 baseline forecasts. The report must also compare the same categories at Wayne County airport, Detroit (where Northwest has another hub.) 8. Reyuires the MAC to spend no less than $185 million between 1996 and 2002, from any source of funds, for soundproofing buildings and for property acquisitions within the 1996 60Ldn noise impact area. Limits such property acquisitions to residences, schools and publicly owned buitdings. Requires MA.0 to insulate and air condition four schoots in Minneapolis and two schoois in Richfield within the 60 Ldn noise area. o P,�.. �c 4 f.".,(� �n r?�-tr*7��er fhn SMAAC NEWSLETTER probable noise levels from a new \ north/south cunway and to develop a noise mitigation program for those areas falling inside any new 65 Ldn contour as established after the new runway is in operation. Based on this outcome, MAC must reserve enough money to implement this new program in the newly impacted areas. 10. Requires the MAC to make recommendations to the state advisory councii on metropolitan �airport planning within 180 day of submitting the dual- tcack study recommendations to the legislature (about Sept. 15, 1996.) on noise mitigation plans for the 60 Ldn level. The advisory councit must review and comment on the recommendations within 60 days thereafter. 11. Reyuires the MAC to contract with the University of M"innesota to conduct a study analyzing the linkages between aviation service tevets and commercial and industrial activity in the � state, by February 10, 1997. The advisory council must review and comment to the tegislature within 60 days. Cost of study not to exceed $50,000. � � - -� -�- ��. SMAAC NEWSLETTER Page 7 NIANY KEY QUEST[OIYS GO UNANSWERED by Dick Sararders Many key questions were lett unanswered in the legisiature's haste to close offthe dual- track study six months ahead of schedule. Among them were: (1) What is the effective operating eapacity of the 3,100 acre site? (2) When will it be reached? (3) What indicators and trigger points will be used to monitor trends and set offadditional rounds of expansion? (4)Why was tl�e economic study released three weeks after the public comment period ended in mid- Febn�ary? (5) Hasn't Minnesota tost any hope of becoming a world hub to Detroit? (6) Why was the Minneapolis City Council so late ro the party? Why, in the � � end, did it endorse Mayor Sayles Belton's recommeadation to buitd a narth-south runway quickly as a noise mitigarion step when there is inadequate evidence? (7) Why was the Vermiltion site chosen over the one closer in? Why weren't the inflated transportation costs of the Rosemount remote runway concept chal(enged7 Why weren't the market values of Iand sales or redevelopment riKhts at MSP used to reduce the eventual price of the Dakota County site? Spaee doesn't pennit full explanations. Sui�ce to say, most suburban and rural legislators had made up theic minds before hearings bc�gan. Much of the concern centered around the MAC's conservative projections for operations reaching 520,000 operations per year by 2020, an average annual increase of about t percent from 1992 as shown in Fig. 1. if, however, one i�. � uses the 3.4 percent Srowth rate of the past three years, that total would be reached in about 2002 even after reflecting MAC's March 1996 elimination of 20,000 genera[ aviation over-flights. The domestic airline industry is predicting a 4 percent gain in 1996. MSP's operations for the first three months of 1996 are believed to be running about Z.5 percent ahead of the year-ago pace. MAC contends that the recent tra�c surge is due to three one-time events by NWA: consolidation of its Washington, DC and Ivfilwaukee hubs, additians of another bank of night flights and the Canadian Open Skies treaty. In addition, the ratio of connecting passengers to originating passengers hasn't declined as rapidly as NWA predicted. MAC also says that growth in passengers is a more accurate indicator than flights because of increasing use of large-body to narrow- body commercial jets in the mix. In the long run, the most accurate indicator, says a MAC official, wili be delay times as shown in Fig. 2. From the present 3.5 minutes per flight ("Existing"), delays will grow to 5 minutes at 520,000 operations yearly and 9 minutes at 600,000 operations if no expansion occurs. With expansion ("Alternative"), delays would be reduced to 3 and 5 minutes, respectively. About 15 minutes is the maximum acceptabte. �. �sia�ecu �.cod.tte uo �i�qnd �iaua� ay� pue `d�ysiaqwaiu ad�,+y�s a�� `�uacuwanoa ay� u� slapEaj pa��a�a ur.io�.ut o� spunJ a� ap�noid sanp .moA •�cn si uou�di�q.red mo�C pue dno.� s�uazpio e sc �ydy�s . � •�ui�reuz �xau mo u�o.� paddo.ip aq II� �£6, �� ssai .�aqumu �ae `no� cuo.g. .reaq ann ssa�un •�uaun� �on a.�e no,C�i ��po� dct�siaquxau� .�no�C nnaua.z aseajg •dn{siaquaaux dn p�d�o aea� �sel a� sa�g�ipui .za�ajsnnau mo,��o iaqe� �uilreut a� uo aaqumu ac�, OS$) �uqnqu�uo� •aa��cuuzo� �ddI�IS � uo anias o� �ugju�n aze no��i x�a�� asea�d diZ auo�d tSZ$) �ur.�oddns Sov�ra 1V.IETxo A�roRT AcTTo�v Covlvcn. SMAAC 5116 CoLuiKsus SouTx MINNEAPOLIS� IV�N. 55417 612-822-8118 SMAAC ANNUAL MEET[NG ANNOUNCEMENT May 15,1996 7:30 - 9:30pm MAYFLOWER CHURCH E. Diamond Lake Road & 35W And please bring a friend ! See inside for details. iSI$) I��aua� ssaippd aureN Lit�SS '1�IW ��'�W �os sn�ncnzoa 9TIS �WL1IS :oa au�s �o� rn�nn�u�-zu�zzox�� a�'dlG1IS Tom �avell 9 9 City Administrator 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 � C' ��, �.....�.:-.�....�..-...-• ..............................................�....�.. ____-------- a. y �. '� •d �r 7+ 0�� d O �� 'C1N b�� pt�, ��. ��v��p� ,�,�as ��,�� .�°'.t�;��a�� a� Q u �� . .c � .c� °�� .or °� i� y � � �'�,�� b� � �i'�� o ��.o� .�� i�.d�.00 ��ooA�.,° � �b °�,a � ow'� a �.��x+a� �, � o � �' �� '�� y�� a�o��'�� ww o 0 'CI G4y� .'�'1 � � � ��: � � � w � � �� p��b� � 0 m � � ��,,�'abo�df� "�q� .� � a� �' � i3'+3 ao -� � o ��+r°`�'�•� �q�a� ��L�� o+��:��r � ��1� '�{��i� Z, `� �i p��i Q�F..��•� O ��t'�� a� a�t-i°. a� '� x� � aZ o� � y«+ w � C> w pp '� 0 q Tl '� "d CS U p�.�, Q,, ��''�r3y�`"��'��,��.�o�� bD��..5 Oi�� Q�N (� �y}y� y~`�,� p�� w �� d��ZiN`� yid�'��yw�' �y �.� �,°��0'�°5° o 'Dvo[.�apqy.�v'�a�.�� 0�� N U N� O�w �� Q W O� � CiN i o c�� 'G� d �� wV wC�,�'y"� p�,�t�. ��oct� w � Vo �o� �"�� o�ci �� "�d oad",�daoy, a�'�"Oc+.�'�a`� ��V'�`a�a�Va�° ��pH�ao��a�i�vo�� 8 � �a,w�'`3t�� o° ��5 $ oa �cf ac�� $.�' ,5 � .b • ' ,� i ,�' H'° o'� `° ,`"s� � � � � �� b� . �«°b'u 8 g,��_" � � o�v a d >�d$qd d .. � ��50 �� «�y"� � � «'��p .9 d � ' o ✓�' �.o s� �� _ �," � �:�� .,�,�,�w � �� Q �� .��.�� d o� �a �+�5 g � s�= � � ° ��b.c o��a� e�.flt�O�bo� � ��,'s�� w � 'Oi�t � �� "" d�� S��i �� C o�oo��. x��Bh'�.�' .g'�bw � 3�.[.c c.$ � � � $ ,� i ' o � cs eD o. �i =' �,,'��06 ��a� .�r,7Qa ��b� 'a�i��y oQi o,,,� � �b� a7�.� � � �'i"''S A °° °,� a � �'r� `°'r� o � �.� G °�`�" � ` �b � a � �a 3°°y ��o9�T�`.r�.�� «:��fo �v�,°� v��,�,8��$°�`d��"�� d� � �b'O � o.� �9�b� � �� 5 g..��"8��'�po� oo,g�-��`�' o��xo�� 'c,c, '� e 8��_ � e.`� E o a. .c c�'"a' ao 8 v� O� �Vr�.� � Va� �q� w��'S� Odi O� � �3� ��a�� 8x �� ai .ov � o�b ��a o �� $.�� 8��pp�0 �O O��.� � CO.� ii V q d�� o��,�y,',�a,,,��'�o� � �om�� r� Eiti q�'a S�o$�� w� �.'��'f3.,.� �.5�° '�� 0�,�'Soo oFxbo$-» .v � a � a � ss � o �g °� ��b5p��.°� �� m'�� ,�'�� qdL �°°�'� �'��.$ ��o x�.�..��.s�s��v� Qi 7i'd �• t rI l7 �{� V L � � � ��b��b�� o 4v1, ��„ d�� a �� o , � � � �M M '�`a � �'v .o o «.. v � O� ��w'��o�� t� C .� �� p � 5 V ij d �. � � �j '� 00 O. fi0p�a��71X� d3'',,� Q� � � ��'C7� i7 � N�1'� �� iL � .�.. ""' r° a � C! .+ � � � �t� �°��o�a`�o"'s�s�$� `-� � v °'�°d��O��'r.�'��°� .��' �4� .c, � � �'�'6Q � a�Fi �.��, aa � � ua�s"xaqox�a...� � tij ��''� ��o� ��}0 �'a� �.�� a000 VL7��w � '•.a �� x� � �dww '�� i° " � � d � o $om�' �. � V] `°i '«� .� > c u a► a. i3 p � �� [�°��8�°��d � �� w� «� O�ww�� '��y ��.�, a�T p N� V � � V a � � � L � :J ' G ": -: -: " . C• a� 4`' li M1.. p ca G G}, c4 -, ,G G' O .� d,�� 4.,��b� � V d b y� a d � O � $h�� b �.��r. S �"'� � o � +,. C��'J N:�r�" A��,,.� '~�� abi� a� � o � � ��:��.��:� � . � MAY 1996 �� AMERICAN ,� � PLANNING ASSOGIATION By Scott Dvorak t is hazdly news that airports are the source of many complaints to planning departments and the focus of heated public meetings. But they aze also a significant element of a region's economy. Planners face few problems in which the ideal parameters aze imore easily defined: a well-managed airport with sufficient capacity and room to expand in an easily accessible location far enough removed to not overburden nearby residents with traffic, noise, and pollution. Few places remain where an airport will be useful but not negatively af�'ect somebody. Development inevitably will find it and create nuisances. It is no longer possible simply to locate an airport on a greenfield site and not worry about its externalities. Existing airports aze already nuisances for some citizens, and their expansion will cause additional problems. Airports must comply with federal regulations, but also integrate them and their operating needs into area land-use plans. Historically, this has happened on an ad hoc basis, but increasing use, larger airplanes, increased development around airports, and more pressing economic development needs have created an environment in which land-use planning has become j rnore critical to the continued viability of airports and their =-- regions. This issue of Zoning News examines the participants and major issues in airport land-use planning and how some communities are handling them. Participants Airport operators. Operators are interested in maintaining and improving their airports' economic viability. Their main concern is the ability to increase capacity if needed, through either building new runways or allowing additional flights. Ideally, they would like to make decisions with a minimum of opposition. An airport is a source of tax revenue for either the owning municipality or the airport authoriry. Its viabiliry direcdy affects economic activity in the immediate azea and, ultimately, in the region as a whole. Airport operators are often significant land owners in the surrounding area, and a vibrant airport is the best sales tool in promoting development of undeveloped and underdeveloped airport land to generate additional revenues. Municipalities. Neighboring municipalities confront a set of conflicts. Proximity provides a great boost to their economic development. Many businesses like to be near an airport £or quick access to long-distance travel and to expedite the shipping and receiving of products and supplies. The major land uses in demand around airports aze wazehousing, of�ce space, manufacturing, overnight accommodations, and meeting space. On the other hand, residents and some business owners aze oFten adversely aff�ected by noise and tra�c. Municipalities must try to maximize their locauonal advantages while reducing ! �egative ef�ects. They often try to join the regional airport `� authority commission or airport planning process. If they cannot do this formally, they find other ways to air their COf1CC('flS, t).�t!?��P i�'fQII<.'h rhe 77�tt'� i'1C(�1? Of ��Ral cl�ann�-1�. Residents An airport can provide thousands of direct and indirect job opportunities. It acrs as a magnet for all kinds of development, including residential. Most airports are located in formerly rural or low-density residential areas. As use increases, they change from benevolent neighbors to threats to the established quality of life. Increasing the number of flights or changing flight patterns subjects new or different people to the accompanying noise. While airports can sometimes change flight patterns or build new runways, it is much more diflicult for families to sell their homes and uproot their lives because of the resulting nuisance. Residents often feel their concerns will be ignored in the face of the huge financial investment airports represent, the much larger regional economic concerns, and the political agendas often played out through airport politics. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA, an agenry of the U.S. Department of Transportation, establishes and enforces safety standards covering all aspects of civil aviation from the manufacture, maintenance, and operation of aircraft to security measures at airports. It also promotes the expansion and modernization of the nation's airport facilities and provides funds for construction and improvement, as well as grants to state and local authorities to prepaze plans for future facilities. The FAA thus plays an important role in influencing land use around airports, although it plays a passive role in negotiations between airports and surrounding communities. I ssues Noise. Noise has the highest profile of all airport nuisances. It is indiscriminate and relentless. Over the last Few decades, the problem has worsened as flights increase, jets get lazger, and development crowds closer to airports. Noise has become the driving force in most decisions about airports. New runways, changes in operations, and proposals to rezone nearby land will ultimately be about noise and its effect on nearby residents. In many areas, airports have become so unpopulaz that even the slightest hint that noise may increase is enough to stop a project. The federal government has made several ef�'orts to encourage airports and airlines to address noise issues, including two summazized below. Part 150-.Airport Noise Compatibility Planning of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 150) contains standards for airport operators to submit noise exposure maps and airport noise compatibility planning prograrns to the FAA. Operators of airports whose maps have been found to be in compliance with applicable requuements and whose programs the EAA has approved in accordance with Part 150 provisions may apply for noise control and general project funding under the Airport Improvement Program. As part of the planning process, operators must determine the eactent of noise impact around the airpon by developing noise exposure maps using DNL contours. As part of the Part 150 planning process, continuous contours must be developed for yearly day-night sound average levels of 65, 70, and 75 decibels. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, according to the Guide to F.4.4's Noise Act Regulatzons, prepazed by the Cuder & Stanfield law firm in conjunction with the acoustical consulting firm, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., directs the FAA to "escablish a national program to review noise and access restrictions on aircraft operations imposed by airport proprietors" and "phase out the operation of all Stage 2 aircraft by December 31, 1999." This change will effect a dramatic reduction in noise contours around airports. For example, according to an article by Ray Walder in ICAO Jaurna� the noise impact area upon takeof�of a$oeing 727 (a Stage 2 aircraft) is 14 square kilometers; for a Boeing 757 (a Stage 3 aircraft) it is 1.3 square kilometers. After this major reduction of noise impact azeas, however, current technology offers the prospect of only minor future reductions. Stage 2 and Stage 3 are noise level production designations given to civil subsonic turbojet airplanes with a ma�cimum certificated weight of 75,000 pounds or more. As a general rule, airplanes labeled Stage 3 are quieter than those labeled Stage 2. cr�„e � a;r� r�Ft er�-i��r>: ri�� 1��° renlacet� �+�irh quir.t�°r ensir.r.,. or � their existing engines may be recrofitted with a hushkit to attain Stage 3 noise requirements. Operations Airports aze limited by the number and position of their runways and their physical settings, but many can take � advantage of neazby features to lessen noise irnpacts on residential areas. Flights can be directed over bodies of water or less populated land areas. Some airports have even limited noise from aircraft engines during takeoFf and landing by reguiring pilots to cut back their engines. But ground noise can also be disruptive. Airports can dictate how long and how loudly aircraft can idle their engines on the tarmac, mandate that engine repair work be done in hush houses built on site, and mainrain a curfew, shutting down operations during nighttime when nearby residents would be most annoyed by aircraft noise. Land Use. A good land-use plan for the area around an airport will go a long way towazd alleviating problems. Airports are increasingly motivated to engage in this type of integrated planning 6ecause they aze more awaze of therr significant impact on surrounding areas. At the same time, people disturbed by airports have become more vocal. Once-quiet suburban communities have become political forces to be reckoned with. . .. ... S. .: + �'��li '�'.'.:. l , . :t � .. � .. : . r �-.;. The Day Night Average S;ound �,ejtel (DNL) �.s . basexl on an�nergy averaged sounc�=��t.el-measure�i .: ; ,. over a�eriod:;of 24.;hours, wid� � i0�lecibel ;#��t3' aPP�ed to. nightdme (10 p m. to �7 a.m.) ;• souncl ievels to accou�t for increased�annoyance �tuutg the iught hours : < <, .} �t � ,.� � ;� ; t ,, ,, : . .. .... . . .. '�:i' ; t 1�� r � t ��. �. Federal and state agencies have extended their incerest as well. The FAA has been instrumental in encouraging airports to consider surrounding communides when planning growth. For e�sample, Part 150 suggests appropriate land uses in certain noise contours. The FAA has determined that all land uses are compatible with noise levels below DNL 65 (see table). The FAA cannot require communities to rezone land within theii jurisdictions to the appropriate use, but it can withhold funding until an airport can prove that it complies with all FAA standards, thus forcing airports to negotiate with surrounding communities and plan more effectively for future growth. Cities operating their own airports wholly within their jurisdiction can address noise most easily. They can analyze the land uses azound the airport and rezone for more appropriate uses or undertake mitigation measures to alleviate the problem. The situation is more complicated when the airport is run by an independent authority or located outside the operating municipality's jurisdiction. In a chapter in InternationalAir Transportation, ICristi McKenney writes that, "in general, delineation of an airport environs planning azea should reflect aircraft flight paths, high noise eacposure conditions, natural terrain, designated community planning jurisdictions, corporate boundaries, local street and road network, utility system ' coverage, surface water drainage provisions, and any other factor that may be of importance locally." She advises that the airport's master plan be made an integral ; part of the environs plan and that the two plans should dovetail ( in their goals and objectives. McKenney says options for reducing noise are limited, so airports should become more in•,�nl•.e�a in I:�.n��n��c �.?, ni:ins� a��i enc��ur:+t;e r:�de��eloJ�menc F,� affected areas to more appropriate uses. This could also spur economic development for the surrounding communities. The airport operator can play the lead role in coordinating the i interested parties' diverse demands. What's 1�lewrs From litigation by municipalities asserting cheir right to zone land within their jurisdictions without interference to new technological attempts to mitigate airport noise, land-use planning around airports is changing constandy. The Airport Noise Repor� published by Anne H. Kohut, is "a biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments." It provides a continuous, comprehensive summary of current events and issues in airport planning. Many of the following items have been summarized from its articles. In City of Cleveland u City of Brook Park, a federal district court found that federal law does not preempt Brook Pazk, Ohio, from using its zoning powers to control airport growth. Cleveland Hopkins International Airport is operated by and primarily located in Cleveland, but part e�ctends into Brook Park, which requires a conditional use permit or immunity from irs zoning ordinances before airport eacpansion can take place. The airpon is ttearing capacity, and Cleveland would like to e�cpand it by extending an eacisting runway, and building a new one to accommodate increased flighrs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reviewing the case. If Brook Park's zoning authority is upheld, airports across the nation may find themselves subject to zoning ocdinances seeking to limit their expansion. Shrinking noise contours: Many communities near airports prohibit certain land uses within high-level noise contours, � � which are expected to shrink dramatically as airlines convert their fleets to Stage 3 aircraft. Once this happens, many communides will be quick to rezone land to allow development closer to airports. Although this seems like a good opportunicy, many airport operators believe noise contour lines will expand again as air traffic increases. Therefore, they want nearby municipalities to hold the line on development to provide a generous buffer between development and the airport. At this point, operators ha�e no way to enforce their request other than to educate the surrounding municipalities and work with them on long-range airport area planning. New airport�: One way to alleviate many complaints is to build a new airport farther away from existing development. Last year, Denver opened Denvec International Airport (DIA), the largest in the nation, 12 miles to the northeast of its former airport. DIA sits on the open plains with a minimum of nearby development. DIA's large size and remote location have reduced the number of people af�'ected by airport noise, but Denver is finding that escaping the problem is not so easy. Former city attorney Steven Kaplan says noise was a driving factor in motivating Denver to build a new airport and was one of its most studied aspects. But DIA's noise has irritated a whole new group of people in Adains County, Boulder, and the mountains. The Metropoliran Airport Commission of Minneapolis-St. Paul has decided simply to improve its existing airport rather than spend the money�to build a new one. Its study found that a new airport would provide no additional economic benefits. The commission has decided that noise is not enough of an �__ � issue to spend the money needed for a new airport. Accelerated,�eet truruitzons. .Although the FAA has established a Stage 2 aircraft phaseout schedule, several airports ' - „ i' ,�.��i� . r� 7'h�•;�irl;�i��t:;rc• fighting this trend on grounds they are already phasing out aircraft as fast as they financially can. If too many cities adopt accelerated schedules, airlines may be forced to concentrate their noisier aircraft in the few that do not. New flight patterns Many airports have experimented with new flight patterns that would direct flights over less populated areas. These ef�'orts must be balanced with safety issues (rugged terrain or strong cross-winds), but they have achieyed nominal success. In many cases, airports may construct new runways to redirect traffic. This does not make everyone happy. Albuquerque International Airport recendy extended one runway so that it may close its main runway for repairs, then close another permanently. Faz fewer people will be affected once the project is completed, but a previously unaffected group in the South Valley area is waging a legal battle to block the plan even though it may be better for the region as a whole. Curfews Many airports have instigated curfews. The airport either closes completely between certain hour's or limits the types of aircraft that can fly at night. This reduces noise irritations to the surrounding community but limits the airport in taking advantage of one of the fastest-growing markets, cargo shipment. Cargo is shipped mostly at night. As airport budgets are squeezed, accommodating cargo shippers is one way to produce revenues during an otherwise quiet time. Buyouts. A key tool to reduce noise/land-use conflicts is ,;; �.,,1�� m {�t,�� o�� r•c-,rh•. , <�, •i � �; ., io�t ..�r�;��r� �,�. ,- 3 include some provision for this practice, but the level of development near airports makes it cost-prohibitive to buy all adversely afFected land. As an alternative, airports may buy avigational rights—the right to fly over a propercy without risk of the property owners suing for damages from noise impacts. Soundproofing. In addition to buyouts, most airports include soundproofing programs in theu budgets. Land uses unduly affected by airport noise can qualify to be soundproofed under several FAA programs. This helps but does not address the source of the noise, nor is it financially feasible for the airport to soundproof everybody who wants help. The airport, under FAA guidelines, establishes criteria that define which properties are eligible for buyout or soundproofing. New technology. Wyle Laboratories of Arlington, V rginia, has achieved moderate early success with a noise cancellation technique it is testing under contract with the U.S. Air Force. It picks up the noise through a microphone and feeds it through a microprocessor that reproduces the noise and plays it back at the source. The effect is to cancel the noise from the source. In this exacting science, miscalculations can result in the noise not being canceled out entirely or, possibly, getting louder if the sound waves combine in a certain way. But this effort offers great promise by not requiring a tremendous investment by airports and airlines in new airplane technology. iiff.' A001fling Af S �ing ell Spring Hill, Tennessee, the town that attracted the GMC Sanun auto plant and headquarters in 1985, is facing major issues of growth even as employment at the facility itself has leveled off. This small rural town 45 miles south of Nashville is simply filling up with suburbanites seeking to live the American Dream. Not everyone, however, is pleased with the results. According to a special census conducted last year, Spring Hill's population had grown 110 percent since 1990, to 3,302 residents. In 1991, the town issued 24 building permits; last year it issued 325. The city even annexed land in neighboring Williamson County to accommodate the growth. At the current rate, Spring Hill's population will approach 10,000 by 2000. The agreement that brought Saturn to Spring Hill is partially responsible for the continuing growth. The state built Route ZaningNewr is a monthly newslatcer published by the American Planning tlssociacion. Subscriptions are available for $50 (U.S.) and $65 (foreign). Frank S. So, Execucive Direccor; William R. Klein, Director oFRuearch. Zoning Newr is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor; Fay Dolnick, Scott Dvorak, Michelle Gregory, Sanjay Jaer, Megan Lewis, Doug Martin, Marya Morris, Marty Roupe, Laura Thompson, Reporcers; Cynchia Cheski, Assistant Edicor; Lisa Bazton, Design and Production. Copyright m1996 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning Associacion has headquazcers offi«s at 1776 Mazsachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. All righes reseev�d. No parc of chis publicacion may be raproduced or utiliud in any Form or by any means, eleccronic or mechanical, inc(uding photocopying, recording, or by any information scorage and retrieval system, without permission in writing hom the American Planning tlssociation. Printed on recyc(ed paper, including 50-70% rerycled fiber and 1096 postconsumer wazte. 396, linking the plant site with Interstate 65, a straight route north to Nashville, thus reducing travel times. Commuters had preferred to live in Franklin because it was closer to Nashville, � but Franklin's roads are packed with stoplights and motorists. Commuting times from Spring Hill to Nashville are now virtually equal to those from Franklin. Cheaper housing is another lure. An acre oFland costs only $10,000 to $12,000, and houses generally sell for $10,000 less than in Franklin. In addition, many families move to the Williamson County side of Spring Hill specifically because their school system is among the best in the state. For the most part, the growth pleases local of�icials. According to ciry administrator Elwyn Bembry, the population reached the "critical mass" necessary to support retail late last year. A McDonald's restaurant, a dry cleaner; �and a shopping mall are under construction, and the increased tax revenue is allowing the city to grow without incurring more debt. Bembry says the city hopes to pay ofi all outstanding bonds within rhe next few years and operate debt-free. In Bembry's opinion: "Nothing can stop Spring Hill's evolution from village to city. We will now concenuate on ensuring that development (pays its own way) through a package of fees." Fees associated with an average new home now total abouc $4,500, paying for needed infrastructure such as a new fire stadon. The city must also complete a new $3 to $5 miliion sewage treatment plant by December 31, 1999. Development fees will secure more than half of the needed �P��.t. . Nonetheless, a recent survey showed that most residents, new and old, would Iike to see population remain below 5,000. The planning commission, which does not want to enact a growth �' cap, has adopted regulations that require that houses be built 20 '� feet apart instead of 12. The commission also voted to increase the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in an R-1 zone and 15,000 square feet in an R-2 zone, but has not yet established new minimums. But many residents also worry about growth's effect on their heritage and sense of community. As a result, some formed the Spring Hill Batdefield Preservation Committee. Its main goal was to raise community awareness about a local farm that was the site of a lesser-known Civil Waz blunder, in which the advancing Union army was able to detour around an encamped southern unit rhat overslept. Zoned for apaztments, the land faced certain development by the end of this year. The committee saved the site with the help of The Countryside Institute (TCI) and the Civil War Trust, both based in Washington, D.C. The site will become the new headquarters for the Tennessee Antebellum Trail. Later this year, the Association for Che Preservation of Civil War Sites plans to hold its annual conference there. TCI also helped research ways to improve Spring Hill's overall development patterns. It suggested scenarios to help reduce the rypical suburban reliance on cars and create a sense of community. TCI representative Linda Hacper recommended implementing techniques suggested by Randall Arendt in Rural by Design (Chicago: Planners Press, 1994). Bembry says the planning commission is seriously considering the suggestions but is content with the town's current growth patterns. Martin Roupe � ♦ 1 /1 • C1 ' i 7une 10, 1996 To: Airport Rela.tions Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, City A stra Subject: Airport Noise Plan of Action DISCUSSION For several months the Commission has reviewed and updated the Mendota. Heights Air Noise Plan of Action. The Air Noise Plan of Action is intended to serve as a guide and a goals sta.tement to direct our actions, as it relates to aiYport operations and air noise in the community. The Commission stated their intent would be to present an updated Air Noise Plan of Action to the City Council in July. � Atta.ched is a copy of the updated Air Noise Plan of Action, which incorpora.tes the +, ' changes made during the Ma.y meetinga In addition, some additional items have been added to reflect the on-going efforts of the MSP Mitigation Committee. Page 4, wbich discusses a narrowed corridor, is based on discussions held with the Commission in 1VY'ay. On page 8, wluch cliscusses the Thud Parallel runway, item #8 was added at the request oi Councilmember Jill Smith. Page nine is new to the Commission. Item #8 was added to page ten, Stage III Conversion, based on previous Commission discussions. Finally, item #5 on page 12, Sound Insulation, is based on the Mendota. Heights presentation to the 1VISP Mitigation Committee. Attached with the Air Noise Plan of Ac�on is the list entitled, Topics of Interest - Updated Apri110, 1996. At their May meeting, the Commission decided that each member of the Commission would prioritize this list in advance of the Tune meeting, so that the Commission as a whole could review ancl prioritize this list. I ' i 1' '1 Consider the updated Air Noise Plan of Action and the Topic of Interest list and provide direction to staff for a final draft copy. u MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT � � TOPICS OF INTEREST - UPDATED APRIL 10, 1996 1. Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedures. 2. Global Positioning Sateilite Technology (implemented 1995-96). 3. Phase Out of Noisy Stage II Aircraft. 4. Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations. 5. MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Pianning Issues - Expansion of Existing Airport. 6. FAA Airspace Usage Study. �� 7. Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues. .. 8. Metropolitan Councii "Noise Zone Map" Update and Related Land Use Controis. 9. Noise Measuremenfi Issues - Usefulness of Ldn 65 Contour and Equity of ( Current Runway Use System. 10. Noise Measurement Issues - Usefuiness of Ldn 65 Contour and Expansion of IVIAC Aircraft Noise Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS). 11. Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure Over Minneapolis. 12. Aircraft Engine Run-Up Noise. 13. Equity of Current Runway Use System. 14. MSP Mitigation Committee. � � ♦ � � � ♦ � � � Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Implementation of Non-Simultaneous Takeoff Procedures Which Minimize Mendota hleights Air Noise Exposure Action Steps: '- • • � -• • . � . � -. . ... . -. . -. -. . . -. . • • • � ' • �-�- . . .. .. . ... .. . .. . . .. . . - . . . . -. � � e::;z . a .�,si:•�o��.. • i ,;Si.,.,,,;5 �•,;s��, s�+�, ,S: //,////,/%%%; %� ///j//ji%/%%////% ,,,;,i,,,/,/,./,��,�.,,,.�,.,i; .,s u%i� i� 1 � Staff/ ARC Staff Staff/ ARC When Completed Completed Compieted %.i.%9%iiiUIiG62 Issue: Goal: � � �; . � � � �, Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Adoption of "Close-In" vs. "Distant" Takeoff Procedures to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights. Action Steps: Review FAA requirements with City Council. . .. .. . . . . •.- . . . ��/..��",•;;;;; -�.;,,;,�,,,,,,,.;.;,,;�:; -,,,,-,;;; //// ///%%/,/ i. �.:i..�'i /:�''/, % i i �� j/• %� �;,I� i// r r i.. r::jr: i.i�9i:ri.b.9.r,.,,ii.q•i ir /; ;% �ii�%ii/�%��i%%%/o/%iiii//ji//riii/j/ ...,,.,, � �� .� � ,,.. , , .,%/;,.:.•..;,;..,;�.. �i�;•..;.•,:,�,.:..: ��;r�•.r/�' .,.is.,a/ ..;/%%.s,' , .;,,,:,,,� . ,,,si.- ��/��/� j��/�/��j// �i . i. /i.;t, , ... i..�i,i.ii:ii::7i.2%Zi i•i C:�.�1/: :� ./%�%�j t,j� 9i .�.i'r:' 'iL i '/,� i�%:•ii::.i:/.ii:; // ��///��/, , . .., . , , . .. i/:. 2,. ,.:i.. 'if::';iL'/2fii�i. .;Si":�:, .;o;:: i % i ' /;' /S•:.::,:y'r::�i: r;ii ,;+i� i �i :� � �/::�i/:iZt i..�,.� ��...:•:i%'iU.: i:: /i'/.".::: ,/j��//j/��//jj%j%j%%/% j//j/%%/ i..i•;.ii.iif�.9.:,.i.:::4/i, .{Sis'%ji::�� '�� 'u///u 0 Who When Staff/ Complefied ARC Staff/ Completed Council �� ii i �:.�i:ii��'�,4i�:% ,, ,,, ;.�.,. z ;,,,--� ,-,;: � C � Issue: Goal: � � � ; � ■ � � � �' Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations to Reduce Noise Generation Over Niendofia Heights Action Steps: 1. Review previous MAC representations on issue with City Council. 2. 3e i � Research nighttime flight restrictions imposed at other U.S. Airports. r-.- . . .. . . . -.. -. . � . .... . . . . . � , ,:: , ; -,:<,,,;,;�„-,,,i;,,�i, .,-,,,:; .%� !%!%%�%%///��//,///, , /,,, �; ;�„ / � .,,, �%%%�%%/%%�j%jijiii/%/'i%', i/,i�,y�I,/� i �! /.i0%' / i9%:Y:%: i� G%ir•' � / % i ��///%/ j//�%%/ / � /, :%GL::: i':::�;i�g i.e •% v7%.: /,::.•.i,' 'e:�r i'�,. �,..,� �. ��%� �%%%/////%�//��i1%%/,///%///�/// ,,,/%/.%,,,,./,/, .;,/,///,j/'�"%i/j;,.,,, . rv. / i. ii ii'r,. � iiiifLi:9'/.:::.5 �.nG:: .� % �5t''ii%i'v •. i•;� i 2'i�%�.. '�G.� /.�/% �i. ii////,/i/�%//%/%%%/i/j/%�%ii////./ ,ii.i.% �'.:ji9iiSii::: i�. i.�.Ui::•i.:, ,i;/ii,/%/�/j/�''ii:;:i i�' i.::%:.i. ',i �i:::'/.: i � '/... /.9i.G i.., Who When Staff/ARC Completed Staff/ARC Completed ` Staff/ARC Completed � �� / ''J.L��g�vJ/!/. / //' i % , � ��i��i ;%i%i%a i� � i% %iY� i 6�%�%i�! yii.�..1:%!2✓,..../�,, /,.._��'./ii.'�../;�,�/��ii%...://i.../✓. %!//%JI� i.. !:.,r ,i� :.�i• •i:.:i/i:i:��i:'i.i,4:,il:�l.r :LGi:..:�/:.�Sia%iifl�j�r,i,��i:.S%C�;; i:i..'.:� 97ti%.::G4:73'i4%'9i.r.y ii�i �/' i%i � i:�.i °��j� �•r/%ii 7�' i � i i � i/ � /''Sii.i i % �'e ��. ..ii'�i/:i u!! i///..//ii////ii%i//iii/di///� / ///ii//%b% /o //.% �/./:./././.i.�i../.%//S.i./�i'i/./.i:,.i,i: �' :�,� �r%ii � �:I:�%�._ll �% � i i %/i$'J•. � ��::i�%r'il...i %% ii:i�%�i:�% %r.'.'Ii:%i%if%�i ��%/ii//�j/%�� -,,r.�.;,;i:z� ..,,.%os�;2;;.,,;. % �3a .:.e•. �;. �,2;.os..s.,:.5xs,.�. ;;o :s%' �,� ;.� %//,/.,%�/ / //%/,/./%�//�i///�/%// ; tr, . /•� ci,.,, . ,2,�••,• i�•i%• vi' �' .%'i'' %%:'% i•� �i• q �9'' j.%/.' rIi" /,////////j,/////.///��%/%/%j�%/'/,//.//�/////%/l//`%////� :.,, ,. ,..�;��:-�,,;•,,,,.�/„/./, ,��///,.,: � % �/.: � i% �% ti:%:'I/% Ii /,�Y�: .ii%i.��/�%.ji�..�� iii%:"%/:: ijiiii/i�/�iij�j�i�j��i��%�/°��j��/ji� , :: ,,,.;..,.,.,,,,.,...,,�, .,,;;,. ,,,,�-, ,,.::,;,.:�:., ,,,;..;..,:;,:: � �� ' ) AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Fieights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Produce and Distribute Informative Refrigerator Magnets Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complaint Line . , .� .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .- . • .- .- -. . � .. . . -. . . .� . . . . . .. . . -. . .- �.. . .. .� .. -. %i % . fl.: . .," . /'i:i..,.. ':..- ...,Dii,;..s;si./ : i /�� j//%//�/jj/jjj///j% jj///%j i. i/.•: i., r�i'��i, i..,. .. i/ii.� ��%%%%%/%%%//////��/////�///.%��; �% %Di / i i:: i%r,:'l' /.� G,%.�/..7r,Y. /.r;.: ��//%��i//////�/ , �, ,,. ,��,,,;,.: 5 Who When Staff Completed ARC Completed Sfiaff Completed Staff Completed ARC Completed Staff Staff Completed Compieted ��'/.i00i:i:/.�.ir: Issue: Goal: `. ,► � � • � � � �; Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information � � -� .. . . . � - .. - .. • •- • • '-• • • � • •• � •• . • • �' • •• • • � • . • • . � - • • � 99e'i :�'�:, :%' i:�%'r�..�'.��%i;��-: i / /ii;:• . l%j��i%%/// j�////j�%/////�� , ,, ,,.: i;, � ,,•,.,,,�: .;,;,.;;� : � a ::; . i�-• . .,. .,•,:•,:..• i.��••i;,:�,.,:: .; �/�i ••��/jj//�/%�%�j//�j��j/�� % / 4 .G . /•. �'� %ir,.i�... �//.,;.'/../.; i:'/. �j//, i •j�r.L0.r9;:: ':: %,2'e:.�:� ii:4i:S/:i:�23i :.i�i%i:ii:%rii �. � %;;,,;;,,,;,,,/ • • • • .%so�<si'..�is j • • ��%i�' iiii$:%G.i%'r� o.!r,:,ii �,i'iii:i�.•iS.'r:: i4l,:,i%��'ii:% C C �'� �; • � � � � Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Appointment of Cifiy Resident to the Metropolitan Airports Commission Action Steps: Who VVhen 1. Review current distribution of MAC Staff Completed Commissioners with ARC 2. Prepare letter to gubernatorial candidates asking for their position on MSP expansion, corridor use, MAC representation ' 3. Discuss City concerns with our currenfi MAC representative � . . . .- . . : r', � .�c,:: G•2•;�.. �%..,- :::. ..,,. ,: osa, .o;;� �jjj��/�jj///�/�j ///jjjj/�/////j//. / / , / ///�/s,��,/ / , � , �; „,; ,., ,,:-. .,,-�<,..,,, ,, %%// j%%ji�%;%�/"%��'%/j%%j//�/� 'j�� /� /r r..,4S %'�i.i.9 ii ii i.2 ,.%%/j�%%%��///%%ii/"//%%�%///�%/.��% ;t / ;% % i ii.ii;:�.:%:i�i,vs i G,..:i.2%'%i : � i yy'iY: i iii:::.:: iir',q/�.. ;�ii! i;:fy::::� //////�%%/%%//,i//%/////////%//%% :,/,,,,/.,, ,/,,/,.//% ,/,/%/ , ,.,. ,,,.,,, ' ` • • . • � -. . . �. . . � .. . • •, 7 Staff ARC ARC/Staff Completed Completed Completed � � ' � _ .. � • � . Issue: MSP �ong Term Comprehensive Plan Goal: Prevent Construction of Third North Parallel Runway Action Steps: Who When 1 e Update Commission on status of Staff Completed MSP LTCP Study 2. Continue participation on MSP Technical Working Committee 3e Respond to public comment request Draft Alternative Environmental Document for MSP Staff Completed Council/ Completed ` ARC ' '- •- • • • ..- -.- . . . . . .. . -. • .. . ' - • • � • • • • - • • � . � ,. �• • • : 7 /' i9%i i�,��;.ii'�S�i %�::0 i4::; i�i;i:o�i/..i�:�eii %,4i',ii�/'%i /%/j�j�%" j//%j/%%/�jj/j/'. gi ii. i, i/::/;'� i�.i�,�.i„ /:rj/.i% � i.ii /%'i/' i.i �i:"/G„ •r'i'%rf,i,;;� � i 4 / / �;�rii ///�� jj/%/j�j�,/%/jjj/j/jjjj jj��j �. i9• i�.s/'/. G/.�/.. /�.ii.i,i,.i ..`� %%i: �ry °�%��j�i%%//%/��%��//%/,/,/,// ,, % ,, .,i . , . i ,,,••.;:,,;•, n .../`�'r/j.ai .ia�.i.::%'' . . �...,, : "'' ' %i . , iG.i•i �'� n'i" �-•i Gi �iii%�/i�i%ji�ii%��i//iii�i%/� ,,., %//,,%,,./;,//;,/%�,,/,�,,;,. /�%i/i., , , , „ , , ,.;� ,,..:.,.;,.., , ,,,; �iy�i/��ii�,i��/ii//�ii��iii�o/r% , ,, , , , , ,s, ,:,. , , ,c,,,.;� ,. � , E�? Not Appiicabie Completed � C� `. ilroi%i /G,ii:'I,�� %:!ii��.�'i7Gi•%�SJ:•`.:%G•:�L' S�v�::6i r� ;;.ic.•~,;•/,�a;•;,:;,;o:sas . .. . ;,. ., ./: • . .,.. :;:�:.;,�-�.r:ss�,• •� i 2 2 ii%�'��i:i �i'% �i/%iO'%b:: ��6�:ti%i %� +� i'n:.�: ;�l�i��%//�/��/�///i,iiy�i/iii ti,i. i,r,��..,i ��i ii•iisi'/,v,:;.. : �•ifi'r:::.if'r: /r�i':04�v/iiii%i:: �F��;:y%:%/; :�:% .! %,iii'r:::.i:,% %r:�C1:�•ii:: �i/iiOi�GiE:..G�%' �ii.�iiGi! a%Ui/idv///, 4j�§� �;�;% �°�s ._�. �s,s�.-,,,.;; .:-:�: •... Issuee Goal: 1 • � � � � � � Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft Assure Conversion by Federal Deadline of Year 2000 Action Steps: 1. Review NWA obligations to MAC regarding Stage II phaseout and research fleet mix at various airports around the country 2. Prepare letter to MAC regarding ongoing contract talks with NWA to request inclusion of language specifying phase out date 3e Work with MAC Commissioners who are supportive of effort to help build consensus amongst MAC 4. Letter to NWA asking for their cooperation in committing to Year 2000 phaseout 5e � � . � � � . . . . . . . . . . � ... . . . ..- j �i, 7 ��4%�t�J/; i% �i '�.'. ��.. �i'i�i j//j�//%/j//�jj�/�jjjj/jjj i ��;,��. �,�/ , � .: ,,,:;/�: ii/ia/,.ij �/i/o///ii%i%�///i�//% ,,..,,�, ,., ,,;�.; ,..�,,;:,,...,,,..,,.,.::.: � ifi'r:'S i:�, r ::i%.�i::::::i:i;i �i,'' i.�/,:,:G:::�i� '%i��/�/ ,:::;.. ,,-, • : i y�`�Si�Q:/,�.� %.i:y::;;;.y�i.:ii��i ii. ii%/�/,,,�-/�j,%///,/% ;,r ..,: ,.,�..; Who When Staff/ARC Completed Staff Completed Staff/ARC Completed Staff Completed Staff Completed 1��v.ii% /, i.! % %�I"I'%%:jiG�Iiii:: � ' 10 m � � � � • �. � � � Issue: Noise Reduction Through �itigation GoaL• Determine Feasibility of a Legal Challenge to Current Air Noise Distribution Action Steps: Who When 1. Review history of legal challenges Staff/ARC Completed related to air noise � .. � � . . -. - . • . .. .- . -.. . . . . � � ;;; , , ,i; �,,: •,,. •�,,;• ,, ,,;,.�: i�iiiiii/��iji�ii!�i�/ii��i , ; ,,.,,�, ,.,, - -,:�.: ,,, , ,.�.::.-,_.; ;%./////.i//%�,/io�ji , ,,,;, .,;,,;; , „ ,,.:..;.; � Staff Completed �.:•.i:sis,�2�co:: � � � • � � � � Issue: Assure Installation of Sound Insulation in Schools Affected by Air Noise Exposure Goal: Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation Action Steps: Who When 1. Meet with school administrators Staff Completed to discuss need . • .. . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . - . .. . . ;, „-�,., ,,, ,,..;,,,. , i'r i i / i/.'i.., i'� ri• %� �i:! ��/��/��%///%�///%/%��%%�%%�% ��r i ��.��i:;;i/i:..%:/�i:ii.�i,r�i ��.,-,,////��// ,/�. „ ;��,. i., ..;..:, ;,,, O ' i'r 6 ii:i8� ii' :i.•� 44:�.. i.� c��.i ji�fi%. ir0% ✓//jj/j/��/j%%j��/�//j///j%/%/jjj�� l. • � /I / li�.. �/i //I,li%�� i�i %iii�%i�I�%��/ /iG�ii %%�/i'I�%i /��/j��//j�,� ,.i• i , ! i i �' Updated 6-10-96 � Staff/ARC Complefied Staff/ARC k;�;ii.r..-,;.,,:-§ ( 1' l 1 1 �;1 ' 0 1� i June 10, 1996 To: Airport Relations Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, Ci ��tra,tor tY Subject: Discussion of MSP Mitigation Committee DISCUSSION The Commission is awaze that Mayor Mertensotto is serving on the MSP Mitigation Cormmittee, a group organized by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to make a recommenda.tion on appropriate noise mitigation efforts that will be necessary under the concept of an expanded MSP. There have been two meetings to date, on Ma.y 16, 1996 and on 7une 3, 1996. (Please see attached meeting schedule.) On June 3, 1996, Mendota. Heights presented their Statement of Interest on the - mitigation at MSP, as requested by the committee of each community. The June 4, 1996 �_� Sta�ribune article included in your packet under Acknowledgements reported on this meeti.ng. Attached is a written copy of the Airport Noise Mitigation Position Sta.tement for the City of Mendota. Heights that was presented at that meeting. Mayor Mertensotto used the Air Noise Mitigation Statement far the preparation of this document, however, as he notes at the end of the document, neither the Commission, or City Council, have had time to review and approve this docnment. The Commission should review this Position Statement and make a recommenda.tion to City Council. Mendota. Heights has reserved an oppoxtunity to make additional comments at the June 26, 1996 meeting of the MSP Mitigation Committee. Pagan, St. Paul and Minnea.polis will be making their statements at that time. , � , � ; �, � Review the attached Position Sta.tement a.nd make a recommendation to City Council. Attachments: Meeting Schedule Agendas for May 16 and June 3 Mendota. Heights Position Statement Background Information for MSP Committee Community Protection Concept Package Position Sta.tements from Bloomington and Burnsville M��oP�L11 til�l 11i o�l �7 l..r� SSl�l� �,°`" `°,� Minne�.polis-Saint Paul International Airport , •` * � 6040 - 28th Avenue South � Minneapolis, MN 55450-2999 =~ z Phone (612) 926-8100 a Fax (612) 726-5296 :'�"'�� + o __.._. , :.�i .rt z � � s � � ? �' �O copHt=' TO: FROIVI: RE: DATE: MSP Mitigation Committee �, ._ '.-'''- Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director - Planning and Environment (726-8187) MEETING SCHEDULE May 21, 1996 Based on information provided by Committee members regarding availability, meetings of the MSP Mitigation Committee have been scheduled as foliows: Monday, June 3, 1996 Wednesday, June 26, 1996 Wednesday, July 17, 1996 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. • 1i � . 11 � All meetings wiil be held in the MASAC Room at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Offices, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis. i"wo .additinnai m��tin�c y!✓�II �Aar1 tn �i�a S�f?�?�L�R?� ��J!'�'1�.'#!!'!?� �'.:!'!!':� t!�'� `.",.'�"V ^f - - . ..,. ... � August 5 and the week of August 26. Please be prepared to schedule these at the. June 3rd meeting. Please contact me if you should have any questions. mitplan.dta The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmati��e action cmplu�ur. Ii�,lic�c��r :lirpurts: :11R1.:11�L•' • :�XUk�:\ COCtiT}.'BL.ril\L•" • �:I21'ST:1L+ I�L1'I\G (:LOI:ll • L:1i.i: I•:L`.1l) � .>:11\'I' 1':\t'I. UUl1'\Tt)l�`: C iVIETItOP°OLITAIiT .AIRPORTS CO1V1IV1ISSION . >��+• ''Q ti. Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport �;`� t�� 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, �1N �5450-2799 � z Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 � ,. c x y * :n n � s ,,r + ,o Y � vnpR" V .w � ir; ��..•. MSP MITIGATION COMMITTEE May 16, 1996, 4:00 p.m. MAS/aC Room - MAC General .Offices 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapoiis, 11riN 55450 1. Organizational Issues a. Meeting Location b. Meeting Dates - Time c. Potential Agendas d. Pubiic input Options 2. Legislative Requirements 3. Current Mitigation �Programs Residential Sound Insulation Program Schooi Sound Insulation Program Property Acquisition 4. Future Airport Development/Operations 5. Contour Comparison - FAR 150 (1996) and Future t2005) The Metropolitan Airports Cammission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: tllRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLZ'I.'VG CLOCJD • LAKE E[.�f0 • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN MAY-29-1996 10�S0 METRO. AIRPORT COMM. 612 �26 5296 �_ �� C� . �� Vlra. ��I�1�1 .GPt'Q`''� "a-ti. Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport �j' +'•; 6U�ti - 28th Avenue Soulh • Muineapulis, MN JJ�iJQ-L%99 � � Phane (612j 726-6100 • Friac {612j 726•5296 r � j T N O �" a�,^ r ,��f G" a�avUR��' . � NiSP MITIGATION COMMITTEE Monday, June 3, 1996, 10:00 a.m. MASAC Room - MAC General Offices 6040 28th Avenue South MinneapoBis, MN 55450 �L�i('�1 NWA Fleet Conversion Plan• MSP Community Protection Group Report Community Presenta#ions/Expectations'� a. b. c. d. e. Bloomington Richfield Mlendota Heights �urnsviiie St. Paul P.01i01 �Present�tions bV the cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, �nd Inver Grove Heights ate scheduled fior the next meeiing of the Committee on June 2fith. T%e 2,lcvepaliten .;rpa4'. Cnr..mi.;iun ia :�n ,�liir*nati��c cic.ien ci�k�o��c.-. Relior-er :lirpoxte: t1IRI�k'E • ANQKA rQUN'i'Y/1,i1,A.tN)S • t;RYS't:�iL • FLYING CIAtfi � IAtCE ELMO • S�lIlVT P�tlL 1)t)WNT(SUYN . �- TOTRL P.01 a m DXA.�F'7' COPY CITY OF MENDOTA I�EIGBTS AIRPOdtT NOISE MITIGATION POSITION ST.4TEMENT As a community directly and severely affected by aircraft operations at Minrteapolis- St. Paut Intemalional Airport (MSP), the City of Mendota Heights is very concerned over the future configuration and operation of the airport. Cost and convenience was the primary basis for the recommendation that the ME1C Commission and the Metropolitan Council made to the legislatuure that the present airport be expanded and that it is capable of annually serving up to 640, 000 flight oper•ations and 48 million passengers through the year 2020. r If the adjoining �ommunuies want to enjoy the convenience of having a major airport facility within 5 to 10 minutes of travel, then al'Z the�surrounding communities must share in the burden of the noise generated by the faciiity. It is totally inequitable for the cities of Minneapolis and Richfield on the west side of the airport, and the cilies of Eagan and Mendota Heights on the east side of the airport, to be subjected to approxima%ly 85% of the , flight opemiions. Therefore, Mendota 8eights feels that the equitable distribution of aircrnft noise is the paramount issue the MSP Mitigation Committee must address. T7ie million dollar plus A.N.O.M.S. installalion is providing factual noise data which is far more accurate than the LDN contours generated thrnugh the use of the FAA "integrated noise formula. " This raises the question of the validity of the LDN 65 as a basis for decision making when more accurate data is available from A.N.O.M.S. It is imperative that the MSP Mitigation Committee make its decisions from the most accurate data base available. Accord'ingty, A.N.O.M.S. data should be used in formulaiing an equitable noise mitigation pmgm�n for the continued use of the present airport facility. The Manneapolis/St. Paul Area Community �"rotection Concept Package prepared by the Metropolitan Council represents a number of tools and techniques by which 1tlendota �eights and other nearby communities will be able to address airport related impacts. The City of Mendota Heights genemlly supports the Metropolitan Council Community Protection Package based on the following consider•ations. 1 Dual Track Airport Planning Process, Summ��.ry and Decision, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Ma.y 1996. 1 As the number of MSP aircraft oper•ations has grown, air noise impacts within ( Mendota Heights have increased dmmatically. Many of the noise impacted areas within our City are older residential' areas (built in the 1940's, 50's and 60's) which clearly pre-date the surge in azr traffic experienced at MSP during the 1980's and 90's. As a result of increased noise exposure, these older Mendota �eights residential neaghborhoods have ea�perienced disinvestment and declane. In order to stabilize these areas and maintain their viability, the use of property value guarantees, taac credits for housing revitalization, aggr•essive sound insulation prog»ams, and other described community stabili.zal�ion pmgr�ams is necessary and warranted. The FAA. Pari 150 Noise Attenuation pmgra�n should' be extended to cover all LDN 60 areas and beyond as necessary. At a minimum, the following residential neighborhoods in Mendota 8eights must be included an the FAA Part ISO Noise Attenuaiion prograna: Furlong Addition along State Trunk 8ighway S5, Curley Add'ition along Lexington Avenue, Rogers Lake Addition and Rogers Lakeshore Ad'd'iit��wn along State Trunk 8ighway .149, the older homes south of Wagonwheet Road' fmm State Trunk Highway 149 to Le�rington Avenue, and Sections l, 2, and 3 of the Fiiendly Halls Addition (1950's) south of Iiighway 110 and east of State Trunk Highway 149, and other scaitered neighborhoods locarted in id'enti,�ed noise impacted a�eas. All of these neighborhoods experience noise events of 85 dBa or greater on a reguYar basis as shown by A.N. D.M.S. Reyualization of industrial prnperties within the City's Business Park will similarly ( require substantial resources over time. In ornler to maintain the long term economic health of this area, the City Council would consider the selective use of community stabilization and revitalization tools described in the Community Protection Concept Package. � The Communuy Protection Concept l'ackage also discusses a number of airport protection measures designed to prevent incompatible Tand development in airport impacted areas. As a community incorporated in 1956 and comprehensively planned in 1959, the C'ity of Mendota Heights has a number of established land use patterns which limits its ability to make sweeping land use modifications for the sake of airport expansion. For instance, the City of 16aendota �eaghts is already 90-9�% developed. Nonetheless, the G�iy of Mer�dota Heights has for many years cooperated with the Metropotitan Council in adopting and enforcing land use controls related to the airport. In 198�, the City of Mendota Heights became the firsi and only city to adopt the Metropolitan Council's Aircraft Noise Attenuation Ordinance and has strenuously enforced the Metropolitan Council's Guidelines for Const�uction Within Aircrnft Noise Exposure Zones. In addition, the CCSitty has made a concerted effort to limit the total number of new resid'ential units located in areas overflown by aircmft, and has experienced substantial costs in monitoring and achieving these goals. (The Putnam Associates lawsuit to decrease the density of the proposed townhouses east of 8ighway 149 and south of Mendota Heights �a Road' was a very costly ordeal for the city.) The City takes seriously its responsibitity to control the development of noise incompaiible land uses within Mendota Heights. As such, the City does not support the crealion of another regulatory body, such as the Airport Zoning Boar�d, to usurp the land use authority vested in our duly el'ected public o, fficials. If "teeth " are to be put into the enforcement of land use palterns, the cities themselves should be the enforcing authority, not sonze dis�c�zi, nort-representaiive boar�d such as the Airport �onang �oarrY. This is not to say that the Legislature, the Metropolitan Airports C'ommission, and the Metropolitan Council do not have important roles to pla�y in regulating air noise generntion and exposure. It is essential thai "teeth" also be put into the regulations affecting the operation of the aairport. Long term community compatibility with MSP is premised on the following: I) The preferential runway use system needs to be revise�X. The inequitable r�liance on the Mendota Heights/Eagan corrid'or should be eliminated. The capacity of the corridor is,�nite, and communities over,/�Town by aircmft using the corrir�llor ought not be expected to endure air noise exposure beyond a fair and equitable limit. All communities surrounding MSP receive significant economic benefit from its close prnximity. Similarly, all should be ez�aected to bear a reasonable and equitable share of the associated noise burden as well. 2) Over the Mendota Heights/Eagan area, deparling aircrnft should be directed to utilize, to the fullest extent possible, less noise sensiiive areas, such as. industrial park pmperty and highway rights of way. These areas have been planned in conformance with existing and approved airport runway configurations, are in conformance with Metropolitan Council guidelines, and have been appmved by the Metropolitan Council. To fully accomplish this goal, aircraft during non-busy hours should be directed to fiy a crnssing pattern in the conidor, ra#her than being given departure head'ings which over�l'y close-in residential' areas. This crnssing pmcedure during non-busy times has hcen approved by the Metropoluan Airports Commission and is currently awaiting implementation by the Fedeml Aviation Administ�Yrtion. 3) As soon as possiLle, the aircmft depariure corridor should be narrowed over Mendota Heights and �agan to take full advantage of the latest air tmffic control technology. The introduction of a Global Positioning Satellite navigation system at MSP should' greaily imprnve the safety of airspace management, and will also lessen the distance aircmft need to be separated fmm one another to ensure passenger safety. Other precision air traffic contrnl ad'vancements on the horizon will only help the MAC and FAA better utilize the airspace surrounding MSP to minimize air noise impacts over residential areas. 4) The magnetic headings for the parallel runways need to be a�justed to reflect current reality. FCight operations through the Eagan Mendota Heights corridor need to be adjusted to restore the original intent of the tower orriers that operate within the � cor�zdor. 5) Once modifzed to take ad'vantage of the Yatest air tna, ffic control technology and a.t�'justed to correct for air noise disiributional inequities, the boundaries of the aircmft departrsre and arrival conid'ors should be specifically de, f rted, and air noise exposure standarnis should be established along thas corridor. Aircmft operators violating these standar�als shouTd be subject to substantia�' monetary fines. 6) Nighttime aircmft restrictions should be put into place immedialely to ensure that only Stage Ill quieter aircraft are flown betwcen the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6: 00 a.m. Such restrictions should' be mandatory and violation of the standard's should' result in a monetary fine to the offending air car�zer. � Noise Abatement .Departure Frncedures (relaied to how quickly aircmft gain altitude upon departure) should be reviewed and ad'justed to ensure that the full performance capabilities of all aircrnft are beang utilized. The abitity of aircraft to rapid'ly gain altitude, thereby minimizing aarcrr�f't noase levels experienced on the gmund, should be quantified and made part of air traffic depamcre procedures at MSP. This is especially true for Stage III aircmft. Please Note: Mendota Heaghts reserves the right to present additional information. This posilion statement was prepared with the cooperation of city siaff. It � represents the policies and sirategic goals of the C'ity Council of the C'�ty of Mendota Heights. After this document has been reviewed and formally approved by the Mendota Seaghts Airport Relaiions Commission, and the Mendota Heaghts C'ity Council, an official copy will be mad'e pari of the MSP Mitigation Committee's recordo Mayor lt�eriensotto June 3, 1996 4 � �: .r'�."Yi>us s,,,Yr � yL f , n�� ° '-; . � `� < '''t :ItRI'.ORti .": ,.. . ' . .., � . ':� , �. ,-� ' • .�:. ,;,, ry ' _ _ _ __ __ t ' ,p��.:�r �� fi y � � 4 r - -- - - �� G r'�,� i , ..� „f-i� „"'1�r� � �� , •- — ��'+t� c! �'tIz'ltttsi t i�� i� I}i �i i��tF,'r�", "�i iii;;��„�`��j'r: _.� wi ;�: �.�` w�� + i � ..�,�n'�d'�I £Fj F �� . � � +� �� F � ��jt�f"�'��s�'� .�-� 1 � �'r � lti ! � � }.i � � '�Y-r- ^"' .�.�;;1'ti� t�,�� ,. ��;�� t, t��;.�, r �,,�.u:�.`•�n��,�.��.-�-- iF' 11� � i( � C�..:. 1�.r•� N�' y -I., ri�� .'�'..Su i n�� , . � t � .� 1 � 1 i�.. . '�....-''�� r •�J 7 J t `�R r�.� . ��t�� 'ti � . �� ' _ ' �•t' "� , ' � ( � .��tr? e'�.i .�v�. ,."... � U i1, �t1�, r - � �`� ' w j, :. l ��'�� ti ,.. ;' . �� , p � ''�y„�r ' �' } . . � i 1:� �•y • '� p� ^� : •_�{t � �� It't �, �.Y � % �.� �° � i ¢ M� _ �1 t + li :l h 4 . � / ��q=��y� M� �(t r� � r ri ts.�. .t,� ' �i r�. A r`1 j �,�,*�i. � ` ` tix��l� � �` � y '��.: S;'� ' ",. : A' � J : : (,� ,:3jf "�1 i� '� .�.` ° ` � r p.k „ ^ � r�� 1 '. ��' �/`+ . �� > �� J�}�e`7f3, ��,l� F.a.�� '/ r � . j ,is „d �� .1 `~, ^'''�` `� '¢'�' � i}1��' R�, �l LI 1 � �� ' � �� ✓ ,� � � r � � r ��.7 ''� s x 'i` ` w+ �` �!� i'' � ,/•i 3t r'�- r�F} i f. � �� r I. �.. t, �� /) 1LYi ii„ L 7"{`td� at� �i;v�' : �, � :' �., ti:� / ,� r� .�.Lri�...i l ��e {1. �} rr t� � � �• ��'e'' � -r � • i ra , .x. � ''�. i •� r � '� s��r,} cr r+ 7\'�, .� �' , f t+ � � � t F I• I •'b� �'�,n., t �:� �` . � k: t' � �~._'.�:'t a — ` , �g:�- � �' � . -.f , � � • - •^* • • �e tl�r'iu��. ,y � �iyt�� ;� �� d �•tit ., "`� \..�u` /. + �'ai �.� �� 7 � Uy S • �i .st 'y �� .r„ ."A :.. /'f � . � ..: �,5. ` .1 .�y.r.�� u r,/ � . `� r • � � � d �.i.rw i .s t!� �;1� 1 . r�� 1.L : x �,.:. � ,� � � � '�:" � �rk��'{ r� c,. � ,,! ,..�lt ,. '�r' .'i � �(�+ �: ,'�.�c�''y, % tr�-f-�`"�` f . J�� 7 . t,�i . .f�.,�t /��,. .� �1 : `'�, `� _M1 '' f.r `�� y.�� I �. .j' �h�'� t�, �Vt�t:..J.y + .• ..� �' �rf�� ,h -�j ("`�`�:.,,''` T �/�:�• '�^� �/ +'• � . W . r � i ' , � / : �;, � y;�� I� ' ' yy'�,' ! � .- t � � - �iit; �tr�� .-' �r r T � ,�' � kn{� � '�'��.'�` = �' k`` t�'' �% � .% � 3'� i ,' a{, , ^� J , y 1� � � �� ` �:, ��2.�,,+�1� f' �1.��` ,�`' U; . � � J , . -��`� , � ��i �f�'� �� .. • �^'�G'� _ r } h� S i7 ) �'� � 1�r�;hil�� F �! ��%�� r � � �� 5 + i`R��.: � (.e �/ y� � r I s` � t � ! `i � . ,� ' �' I t �,. � � �� . � 64 t �1 � 1 1 f t ��1'^: JJ� � � i� , �� •L ., �.;i , J " � Sy.�i yj;j�'jy,; f /� y � F� ., e{� Cy�,• a:'J�! -.a_ _' . e�{ � �' � � � �, � e �� j 1 `.i /, ��'+r4.�r i : a�! f �^` "\�� j � ��°y ' - " 1 �� . � � � j -,:1. �"Y^ ✓n�¢'�s✓ �k y �K.' r } ' �� rM�r'7 �L�. } 1 ' �� a �� --�r � f ��} �"�� +t�D �..��! �r�g�� 1 }, ' �;l�� f � �~� �-- � ; � '�.� � /t''�l n!' ' `♦ i( u�, �3 �! i 1 LF�r,� i 4 +� , ``h y� 3 � �"�_ i+/ ; �r . t�7� �� ,� K��'J �yt' �� 1 ��. ,4 � � � + `r� �i � V i �. J� � � �t� ''it rj�p� , t N ...�. �, li . / `/�.?� �� { 1� 1 1 � �� .�' i a ?�:i.L� e'v � .' � � � ��. i ir . Q: � 7. i�.,�: , i ��`p �. �Y ,r %= a'•��yt ' ` � i� . ' ",�1, E �� T � _ �" .�� i � : .V ti( � . ... . .. . '`-�i�'r` � -- f� �ii � t�cW��R(�o- � �.- "'` � �` "'-. ` •.i. � .� ~ , � �.s , . ?h. ,,"�.. �.' i . _,. v .a �l, ,;I ,�� `, .� ., . \ � � „ .. '`�,f ; ��.� ! Vll.�ti �. , � • . S i: � J �,! (� � '� =��' �q• �� r' •� ,�:� .:�. `i`.:y��i'', F _`•�. ;►�.'; `- � BAC K� RfJ U N D.1 N FO RMAT-I O N May 16, 1996 � i. MA� � MSP 1994 Runway Configuration Use �. �. =': VFR.(92%) ` ;:' IFR;(8%) �, .�� ` � 11 R .47 ��0 '' 29R 29L .�� '� . � � ��.� �f �� 11L �` � � � i �� 11 L � `� �: �, "� ;�O �� '`• 11 R ' � . � O ' �. 11R ' 29R � 29R � ��. ; , � , . ` �� , 29L � _ �� M ;: 29L `� _.. ; ::.. _ , , - "'�W ;. .. , - 11 L ''� , 1 ��O - 11R ` 29R �' 29L ' �;.. - - - � 11 L - - -- � O/0�-- - � � 11R '� 29R 11 L. 1 O/0 29L ,'� 11R 29R , . _ , ____ ,�_�_ ._��__._ �_��____m��_.� � ___�t�____.._�rv_____»__�.__.' 2�L � 11 L G ��O 11R 29R 29L � � � � MSP 20 �. � 1 � �. c�n 29L ,� �. ... � �- �� 31 % �� 11 R 17 29R 29L �'� �. .� �'' 11 L 7% ` 11R `17 29R 29L �� i� ' `�y � 11L 2% 17 � 1;1R . , 29R 29L � � ; . '', ` :, � �...� ': � W z 0 � � .E.► z. t�i GL � Ci� ; Q� � v� � �� ,1➢;t�� `� �f . � z : "' �� '� ;�r ,:;� � �� ✓ � � �y � 1r � t ; ,;,`�° � ��:•s F�,' � '-< ;:;� ,, u� Q r ,� 4 =; '�~ ; :�:. _ ;. 1� �r n �.t - �.I -! �0 �A �.: t� �r�s_'�� — � J z 0 �. t� � ,�- �' � ° � � Q' r� W' �`' G. � '1- J � cn i ' � O � C V - � ,Z � � U Q � � r s . mi •�T � _ `C . � . ':i . `f ;� :' _ o :.�. � . � � '. s � � • s • • . ; ■ • . - s • � . s �- � �. � � ° � �i . V s � - - • � - � 0 _ _ - 0 � . e o � • • - • s � � • • • • � � • � • \ � • • o a � � o • • � •• �� •• a• � � • � � � ae • � o • � • � � • 0 • � � s a • o a• � � - � • o � � � • � • • � � � � • o _ . � • • •• . .. v - - � .. • . s � .� • � • • o � • a• s• • �s • - • � , � s • - - - . . . - . , . . , o . ' • - . . � - . � 1 • 0 o � . s � � � S r• a. 1 M�iNNFAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIR�'ORT-AREA COMMUNITY PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKAGE Prepared For Metropolitan Council City of Btoomington City of Eagan City of Minneapolis Metropolitan Airports Commission City of Mendota Heights City oF Richfield By Clarion Associates � Denver, Colorado in association with Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota October 1995 1VITNNFAPOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPORT-A,REA COMMUNITY PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKAGE--DRAFT Ciarion Associates in association.with Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. October 1995 INTRODUCTION The Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) Airport is widely recognized as being one of the primary economic assets and engines in Minnesota. Not only does it provide substantial direct economic benefits in terms of jobs, but it is a key link for the state in an increasingly global economy. The state legislature is cunently studying whether, if MSP is to remain a smoothly functioning, modern and competitive facility, it should move to a new site in Dakota County or remain at its current location and expand. A decision is expected sometime in 1997. It is clear, however, that even if MSP moves to a new site, that move will not take place for up to 20 years given current capacity and projected demand. While the airport obviously has many positive benefits for the region and state, it is also apparent that it fias significant impacts on the communities around it. Noise impacts are always the first issue that springs to mind, but in reality there are others of equal significance-- safety, ground traffic, fiscal/tax base impacts, environmental xnfluences, and effects on property values and overall community stability. Most airport-impact mitigation efforts focus almost exclusively on noise--and the Metropolitan Airports Commission has established a good track record with its noise insulation and property buyout programs. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that because of limited federal funding, the noise mitigation programs are limited in their outreach. Moreover, if the airport is to be a good neighbor for at least the next twenty years, and the vitality of sunounding communities is to be maintained, these other impacts need to be addressed. Simply buying property and tearing it down or insulating existing houses. cl�sest to the airport is not enough. Airports are dynamic fac�ilities, at least if they are successful. Operational .requirements are constantly ehanging and new runways and other facilities need to be added from time-to-time. Thus mitigation efforts at MSP must also be dynamic, continually changing and being adapted to respond to changing airport impacts. At the same time, steps need to be considered that will prevent any new incompatible development around MSP that would hamper its efficient operation in the long term. To tackle these issues, staff representatives of the Metropolitan Council and the .Metropolitan Airports Commission have been meeting informally since late 1994 with representatives of local governments that are located in the vicinity of MSP. These include Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Richfield. The group's primary goal has been to identify and explore tools that can utilized to�address MSP impacts and to enable communities in the 1 airport environs to take the initiative in dealing with them.' In essence, these discussions have ( focused on how to make the airport a better neighbor and to ensure the continued vitality of surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. Recognizing that this effort was a two-way street, the group also examined ways to prevent new incompatible development that might adversely affect the airport. During 1995, the group has examined a wide range of tools and techniques and has developed a mitigation package that the group recommends the legislature consider regardless of the decision regarding location of MSP.2 This package includes several of the most promising approaches identified over the course of six months of study and deliberation. It would require cooperative action by the state and its agencies, the Metropolitan Council, MAC, and private sector businesses: e Community stabilization techniq�e such as property value guarantees, tax credits for housing revitalization in noise impact areas, acquisition of incompatible land use prior to deterioration. e Community revit?lization a�proaches such as tailored tax increment financing districts and community development banks. • Incentive r�o ams similar to those commonly used in siting large facilities to provide offsetting benefits (such as neighborhood recreation centers) to a �, community or neighborhood. These would include incentives from private firms (e.g., the airlines, car rental companies).as well as from public agencies. • Airp� Frotection measures such as improved local land use controls to ensure that developments that are incompatible from a noise or safety perspective do not occur in the airport environs unless mitigation measures are undertaken. The group also examined the issue of where such tools and incentives might be made available. While airport impact mitigation programs often are confined to areas affected by a certain level of noise (typically within the so-called 65 Ldn contour), the group believes a convincing case can be made that the: impact area should not be so narrowly defined. When homes are demolished within a 70 Ldn noise contour, the impact on the availability of affordable housing may be significant thraughout the entire community. Likewise, their may be a significant effect on a community's tax base. Of course, airport expansion can have a range of other significant impacts on a community, for example, major changes in traff'ic levels and patterns. 'A summary of the operating principles adopted by the group is attached to this document. ZThe measures discussed by the group did not discuss changes in airport operations, such � as limitations on hours of operations and alterations of flight patterns, that may be necessary to f�!lI}� �..��eli�rG.t adverst irrip��cs. � Based on such considerations, the recommendation here is simple two-step screen to determine which communities should be eligible to use the range of tools discussed in this memo. First, only communities that have within their borders a 60 Ldn noise contour as defined by the MAC would be eligible to participate. Second, to put reasonable limits on the geographic area within which the tools might be employed, the group suggests they be available in neighborhoads within one mile of the 60 Ldn contour as depicted on the attached map. The definition of the precise boundary within these general parameters should be delegated by the legislature to the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each jurisdictions to ensure logical coverage of affected neighborhoods. i ' • ' • � � � 1 i , � � .tt _� . , . � � � Communities across Minnesota and the United States have used a variety of programs to help stabilize and revitalize their neighborhoods and commercial areas. For example, in the airport area the City of Richfield has undertaken an innovative`housing development program to stabilize neighborhoods azound the airport. Similarly, the City of Minneapolis has utilized programs such as the Family Housing Fund to renovate deteriorating housing. However, these programs are limited in scope and do not address other key community stabilization issues. Property Value Guarantees Where landowners anticipate that their progerties will be adversely affected by noise from airport operations, they may perceive a threat to their property values. This perception may lead to a pattern of flight from the neighborhood, thus lowering values, damaging the integrity of the area, and rendering the area unstable and vulnerable to disinvestment and an influx of incompatible land uses. Additionally, perceiving a potential loss in value of their most important investment, some owners may strongly oppose any airport expansion that will affect them. Experience in the Village of Oak Park, Illinois, a middle-class suburb of Cliicago, demonstrates that local governments can bolster confidence in an area of potential deterioration by providing guarantees against property value depreciation. Oak Park utilized a property value guarantee program to stabilize a racially changing neighborhood. In brief, the program worked like this. Owners of eligible single-family residences submitted an application to join the program with an $90 application fee that covered the cost of an appraisal and administrative expenses. If after five years the homeowner sold at a price lower than the original appraised value, he was entitled to be reimbursed for 80% of the loss, assuming the house had been maintained adequately during that period. If substantial improvements were made during that time, a reappraisal was possible. Also, if the property could not be sold on the open market, then the owner was eligible to have it purchased by a village-established Equity Assurance Commission. Oak Park believes the program was successful in calming fears of property value loss. While over 160 homeowners initially joined, less than 6� properties remain in the program. Interestxngly, 3 �. no claims were ever filed for reimbursement. Today, the village has successfully integrated and ( remains a desirable residential community. Emulating this concept, local governments around MSP should be authorized to establish a program that pledges to reimburse landowners for losses in property value caused by airport operations and impacts. Backup funding to cover any payouts might come from the state or the Metropolita.n Airports Commission. The local governments would pass through such reimbursement upon the landowner's sale of property. The landowner might be asked to waive any state relocation benefits as a quid pro quo for any equiry reimbursement, the rationale being that such reimbursement would make them whole and that the move was voluntary. Where owners are unable to sell their properties, such programs might require local governments to purchase the properties in fee simple at fair market value, again with backup funding fram the state or MAC. Participation would be �optional for all property owners within a.designated eligibility zone (such as a noise overlay zone). � Preferential� Ta1c Programs To encourage citizens to continue to live in an area that is under some form of physical or social stress or to move to such areas, states and local governments across the United States have adopted a variety of income and property tax credit programs. For example, the State of Minnesota recently adopted an urban homesteading program that authorizes the Metropolitan Council ta designate urban revitalization and stabilization zones that are in transition to blight and poverty. Any person buying or occupying a home within such a zone is eligible for an exemption from Minnesota taxable income for up to five years (up to a limit of $15,000 for married individuals filing a joint return) in specified circumstances. Similarly, the 1995 Omnibus Tax Act provides special property taac benefits to encourage owners of commercial and industrial businesses to locate within one-fourth mile of major transit stops. The goal is to encourage job density around transit stops, thus making mass transit more feasible. The state's enterprise zone legislation also provides property tax benefits to businesses locating in designated areas. (Amends Minn. Statutes Section 273.13, Subd. 24 and adds Minn. Statutes Section 473.3915) In the context of the airport area, such tax benefits might be geared towards trying to keep existing residents in place. Thus a credit might be offered to all persons who have lived in a designated impact area for a specified period and who continued to do so. If the person moved out of the area within a certain time of claiming� the credit, a portion of the tax credit might be recaptured. �Iousing Revitalization Programs � As noted above, several of the MSP-area communities have undertaken aggressive and innovative housina revitalization programs. However, where these efforts involve direct government action 4 as they do in Richfield to purchase deteriorating properties, they can be quite costly for local jurisdictions. Experience with programs like the "This Old House" rehabilitation tax credit program in Minnesota, which provides a tax write-off for owners who make improvements to homes over 35 years old (Minn. Statutes Section 462A.203, Housing Preservation Program), and similar initiatives in other states demonstrates that if individual homeowners can be enticed into spending their own funds, govemment expenditure can be signifcantly leveraged. Interestingly, in Minnesota half of the credits have been claimed by owners of homes with values less than $85,000. Thus the state legislature should consider replicating such a rehabilitation tax credit program for homes in designated airport-impact areas, tailoring it to be more effective by reducing the age limitation to fifteen years instead of thirty five and thereby encouraging renovation of a wider range of housing. In the same vein, experience demonstrates that private investment in housing can be greatly encouraged with a modest reduction in mortgage lending rates, down payment requirements, reduction in closing costs and similar approaches that reduce initial investment and carrying costs for prospective homeowners--especially first-time buyers. As applied to the airport area, special lending programs embodying these concepts, in addition to those already in effect in other areas, to encourage more aggressively first-time home buyer5, thus helping to stabilize the airport-area neighborhoods. Housing renovation revolving loan funds have likewise proven to be useful tools in broader �: ) community stabilization and housing preservation programs. Typically, local governments create low-interest loan rehabilitation loan funds for designated areas (e.g., an historic district). Homeowners in the district can bortow funds for rehabilitation at below-market interest rates, thus encouraging investment of their private dollars. Payment can be made over a specified term or upon sale of the home. Repaid funds are then recycled by making new loans. A similar program is currently available in Minneapolis through MCDA--the Middle Income Housing Program. This program is not limited to first-time homeowners; it makes loans available for housing rehabilitation such as putting a new roof on a house. Funding for such a program tailored for the airport area might come from a one-time appropriation by the state legislature, an annual contribution by the MAC, issuance of revenue bonds by MAC, noise impact fees on late-night flights, or a combination of sources including some form of local match. „� 1� . .� s : • � � Community revitalization programs are generally seen in areas that are past the stage of "preventative medicine" such as the property value guarantee. Communities have generally discovered that there are no "silver bullets" when it comes to revitalization, but rather success will depend on utilization of a variety of programs to address problems such as lack of capital investment funds. Again, MSP-area communities have some substantial experience with commercial and residential revitalization programs, but more programs are needed to enable them to deal more effectively and comprehensively with airport impacts. F� Tax Increment Financing Tax increment financing (TIF) districts have proven to be an effective community revitalization tool throughout the state. There are currently five general types of TIF districts, and the municipalities surrounding MSP may qualify to use one or more of these districts. Generally, however, there are limitations imposed relating to percentage of substandard structures in an area, purposes for which funds can be spent, the basis upon which the increment is calcula[ed, and areas within which funds can be expended that tend to limit the usefulness in dealing with airport impacts. With relatively modest tailoring, the airport area working group believes that TIF could become a powerful tool to deal with a whole range of airport-impact issues. These recommended changes include: • Qualifications: Alter basic qualifying language so that, in addition to a specified percentage of substandard housing, location within an airport impact zone would trigger use of the district. o Spending of increment: Permit the increment to be used for several purposes in addition to the standard land acquisition, site improvements, etc. Other qnalifying expenditures might be noise insulation, rehabilitation loans, mortgage revenue bonds, community facilities, etc. - . � s Geographic restrictions on spending: Allow expenditure of increment anywhere within broader project area, perhaps the entire airport impact zone; do not limit just to district. • Increment basis: Allow localities to write down increment basis to zero. Addressing the associated reduction in local government aid is important to the communities. One alternative would be to allow use of tax increment financing in the qualifying communities without local government aid penalty. Another alternative for consideration would be to spread the reduction over the seven county region the reduction to reflect the regional importance of the airport and the special burdens borne by airport-area communities that benefit others throughout the region. • Inclusion of commercial airport property in districts: An increasing number of airports around the United States are encouraging non-aviation related commercial development on airport land, particularly in open buffer areas on the periphery of an airfield. MAC should be specifically authorized to allow commercial use of buffer properties for non-aviation commercial uses, and such properties should be included in districts, the increment equivalent being paid into a fund to be used to � address airport impacts. �= � �_ Community Development Bank Availability of a steady flow of investment capital or low-interest loans is often a key ingredient in the success of community revitalization programs. Experience shows that in blighted or deteriorating areas, bank lending and other traditional sources of renovation and revitalization funding may dry up or conventional financing may not be sufficient to stimulate private investment. To address this issue, several community development banks have sprung up that might be emulated in the airport environs to deal with lack of private loan funds or low-interest financing. One of the most successful of these community development banks--the South Shore Bank in Chicago--is described more fully in the attached report. Using a combination of targeted residential and commercial loans, strategic development projects, and education programs, it has been responsible for revitaiizing a neighborhood that had 'ueen written off by most observers In most respects, this community development bank is no different than any local neighborhood financial institution. Criteria for lending is the same used by other banks--credit worthiness of the borrower, debt to loan ratio, and similar indicia. One important difference, hawever,: is that a significant amount of the banks funds are in "development deposits"--deposits by institutions and individuals located outside the South Shore area who want to see their money used for neighborhood rehabilitation. As the bank's executive vice president has stated, "We are owned by shareholders who wish to invest in profitable operations, but who are also interested in econornic development. " Community development banks often make rehabilitation funds available at below-market interest rates or with extended payment schedules, This non-traditional financing is often the key to �etting the revitalization ball rolling. Funds for such non-traditional programs come from a variety of sources--community development funds, Community Reinvestment Act programs, and private sector contributions, to name only a few. The idea of a community development bank for MSP-area communities is worthy of further exploration. While the indicia of distress and disinvestment are lower for these communities than was true in South Shore, a community development bank may be able to help stem deterioration in some residential areas and provide venture capital and rehabilitation funds in commercial areas, particularly neighborhood commercial. Chartered by the state legislature, start-up capital for such a banl: might come from a combination of sources, including MAC, area governments, and even che state who could deposit funds therein. Area companies (particularly those associated with the airport) could also assist by depositing funds and making prograrn-related investments (which typically must be paid back, but at very low rates of interest.) � t '� ' ' �� .tr ' ) In the real estate development business nationally, it is an increasingly common practice to - provide incentives and benefits to neighborhoods and communities that are asked to bear the impacts or burdens associated with a large facility (e.�., a large industrial development or ski � resort). These might range from road improvements to ease potential traffic jams to set asides of ( significant amounts of park land to offset loss of open space on-site or increased demand on local parks associated with an influx of new workers. The types of other incentives offered by developers include: • Community and recreation centers; • Contributions towards local police, fire, and emergency medical services/equipment; • Planning assistance to help cope with anticipated impacts; • Special rates for use of commercial facilities (e.g., discount tickets at a ski resort). In a general sense, these incentives and benefits are intended to protect and possibly enhance the quality. of life in an azea in which a new development is viewed as potentially compromising that quality of life. They can also help take the "sting" out of having to live with a major development. In the context of the airport, an incentive/mitigation package might include, for example, funding for additional indoor recreational facilities. The logic would be that such facilities would help "compensate" surrounding neighbarhoods for the adverse impacts airport noise has on the use of outdoor recreation sites. MAC has already taken some important steps in this direction by making some of its land available for a public golf course that not only provides additional recreatianal � opportunities, but also provides an important buffer for neighboring Richfield. Private companies might also be enlisted in this effort. In many communities, airlines contribute free or discount tickets to worthy community causes in airport environs. For example, to encourage community involvement in planning for the redevelopment af Stapleton Airport in Denver, � Continental Airlines contributed airline tickets and lodging as prizes in a contest for school-age children to suggest interesting uses for the site. The MSP communities feel that the many companies and firms that are dependent on the air travel and cargo business and are more than willing to weigh in on the side of keeping the airport at its current location have an obligation to assist in dealing with the adverse impacts of the airport as well. Noise insulation programs, because of limited funding, do not even deal with the major adverse impact associated with the airport, let alone the serious secondary effects discussed above. � :. �i r ' � � � \/ A recurring problem around most major airports throughout the United States is the continuing construction of uses that are incompatible from either a noise or safety perspective. Several steps have been taken in Minnesota to guard against this persistent problem. For example, the state has enacted the Airport Zoning Act (Minn. Stat. sec. 360.061 et seq) that requires municipalities within airport hazard areas to enact special protective regulations to prevent construction or � expansion of certain high density and other uses. Similarly, the Metropolitan Council, as part of � its regional planning responsibilities, has promulgated model noise protection standards that are : , to be incorporated into local comprehensive plans and regulations. Unfortunately, these requirements have not worked in practice. The joint zoning board established around MSP pursuant to the Airport Zoning Act is no longer active. And while a few airport-area municipalities have adopted the Met Council noise standards, the majority have not (although most have some noise protectionJinsulation standards for new construction). If the airport is to continue to function in an e�cient, safe manner, it is important that steps be taken to make these processes more effective. To do so, the legislature should consider: � Integrating the airport zoning ordinance safety requirements with the Met Council noise standards to be administered by a revamped Airport Zoning Board. e Putting "teeth" into the enforcement provisions of the Airport Zoning Act so that local compliance is ensured. At the same time, the state legislature must address the issue of compensation if local regulations prevent a proposed use and local governments are threatened with "takings" litigation that may result in a damage award agains� them. • Requiring that local implementing regulations be performance based, that is, they specify preferred result, but give local govemments regulatory flexibility in achieving a specified objective. • Providing land use planning assistance to local governments so that they can comprehensi�ely assess and plan areas subject to airport impacts. 0 . .��, � ,, � �� i ., TOOL SOUItCE OF EXAMPLE AUTHORITY/FUNDING Praperty Value Guarantees MAC/State of Minnesota Oak Park, Illinois, equity assurance program. Preferential Tax Programs State of Minnesota Minnesota urban home- steading legislation. Housing Revitalization State of Minnesota Minnesota "This Old House" Programs � legislation tax credits �for home renovation. Tax Increment Financing State of Minnesota Current state tax increment Expansion financing legislation. Comcnunity Development MAC/State/Airport-Related South Shore Bank in Bank Businesses Chicago. Community Incentive Airport-Related Businesses/ Large real-estate Programs MAC developments; ski resorts. 10 �� 6 �i �,. � . . - . . .. � � . e e � e , � .. e • � � , . _ . � . - �i/ � �.. 1 � � - i► 1 ' : // � ..-...;..► �� //.. '�/ �. . �►-� �� , . , ,�; , - '' � �. • , _ , .. ��.r � . �1 '�� ,l-" •i ��,� `• !. �. ; � . - . � ,, _ �� .� , ..� , _ ` : �' � . F � 4�==�r _ , - � � � � � /. . ��= �� / //� `� ' `° ^ _� '�' �. ; � N � � � , � ;- -._— i� N � '/� , � ,` i �, � � . � �.� `�. . ; � , �: �.� �� 1 � �� i i1 � � �. . � �, 1 � � �• Q � � � I s �- o � i j•-.-.----_-.-_ _._ _..... � �----•- ---�''° �-�=-� 9=-. -9�. �.�� i� �` � s� c 1_ : 3. r' '� �� ,�� ; �. �� . . �•..e t� � ,� � W � r -� �. o�' . �, � N '' � � � � � - '� - • ' I �� _� �,,,�. ..�.. ��. _ � _. ._._ _ i I ;� cG� � � r�i � O� �✓ � � � ' v��'i p �'�� 'i' n, ��' � � �, �.�''' � S . :. • . . � u4 � , i I��, �'Y" �-- 'C7 ' (� �:'_ ..-----:-.----- -�- � _ i �� .+ 1� •� �_.. C rn _� � '� �, �' � _ � ,r,, r �',• P'_.- ;� , � - . •�. � �... _: . _ __ __. __. e_._.. � — _...._..-- � � ...,..-..,' . _ � - . ,. :� � : • ____ .___. � _, 'Je`. o�a.. - : ` . . • �. _ _ �. . ._ . .f.-:-�. � J'=.b �. r, � >.., �,. l,.,.�,.- I . .. . �..... -_..��.,. � ,�...:: .,.,.�. . . � 1; h �• � _ I = ! . � i , . . . ' t ;0 3 • � i . ) city of ) bioomington, minnesota 1 2215 West Old Shakopee Road • Bloomington MN 55431-3096 ■(612) 948-8700 • FAX: 948-8789 ■ TDD: 948-8740 City of �loomington Issues and Expectations for MSP 10�1itigation Plan . June 3, 1996 1. Committee needs informltion from MAC �►nd FAA on operltions �lternatives which Zffect mitig�tion pl�tnning: e Will 4/22 Runway Use System change be abandoned? e Flight Tracks for N/S Runway ♦ Timing of new N/S Runway construction ♦ Timing of south paral(el reconstruction 2. Committee should work first on "principles for designing a city's mitigation plan" before entertaining individual city pi•oposals: ♦ Which year noise forecast will be used? e Where will residential acquisition and land use modification be considered? e Where will single and multi-family insulation be impletnented? o Will any other programs be part of the mitigation (purchase guarantee; schools, churches, public building insulation)? ♦ What are the priorities for implementation? 3. Bloomington Issues o Insulation for 75 deferred area homes — regardless of noise contour 0 Possible acquisition of certain homes in deferred area o Possible acquisition of single and multi-family homes in N/S Runway LDN65 contour (Long Meadow Circle, along Old Shakopee Road) e Definition of insulation area ♦ Extent of multi-family residential insulation � ♦ Insulation for schools/churches ♦ Proposed timeline for acc�uisition and insulation o Resident relations effort and maximum operations mitigation on 4/22 during reconstruction of south parallel ♦ Consistent program implementation once adopted and announced City of BURNSVILLE ��ss�eu��w/i� 100 Civic Center Parkway . Burnsville, Minnesota 55337-38V (612) 895-4400 ( June 3, 1996 :•� . ..�. � , �;, � � r Burnsville is not typically considered to sufFer unduly from aircraft noise. We do not, for instance, fall within the 60 Ldn(level day/night) contour line for para11e1 runway operations. Still, our community will face increasing aircraft noise with the completion of the runway 04/22 extension and, more significantly, with the evenival construction of a new north/south runway. These developments carry added significance since they may affect many Burnsville residents who are unaccustomed to aircraft noise and who may have sited their homes with a clear and undersiandable expectation of being ciear of majar arrival and departure patterns. For these reasons, airport planners should cazefully consider the following: 1) Sta.ge LII Fleet Compliance - It's vital to enforce airline compliance with the requirement to convert to quieter aircraft by the yeaz 2000 deadline. This will obviously benefit a11 communities near the airport. It will be pazticularly helpful in blunting adverse reaction from communities, like Burnsville, that are unaccustomed to a significant number of aircraft overflights. � ( 2) Equita.ble Aircraft Noise Distribution - It's important to equitably distribute aircraft noise azound the airport. This means more than simply directing aircraft to and from as many points on the compass as possible. It also means being sensitive to the fact that many people have located their homes specifically fo avoid aircraft noise. We cannot be cavalier in disregarding the legitimate expectations such homeowners have. To this end, it will be important to utilize a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) for a11 southerly departures whenever operationally feasible. This SID would keep aircraft noise over the Minnesota. River bottoms and away from Burnsville and Bloomington residences. 3) Adoption of MSP Airport Area Protection Concept Package - Property owners should be reasonably protected from the deleterious effects of aircraft noise. The recommendations contained in the draft report go a long way to accomplishing this. Particularly useful would be the designation of communities within the 60 Ldn noise contour plus one mile as eligible to use the mitigation tools described in the report. Consideration should be given to e�ending this designation to communities similarly affected by departures on the extended runway 04/22 and, eventually, the new North/South runway. Guaranteed property values, preferentiai tax consideration, and community incentive programs are excellent tools and should be promoted forcefuliy. Submitted by: � Flizabeth Kautz Iviayor of l�urnsville I 1�! 1 � � :1 ; 1� � June 10, 1996 To: Airport Relations Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, City Ad r Subject: Discussion of Noise Abatement Departure Profiles DISCU55ION On 1VIay 24, 1996, the MASAC Operations Committee recommended to bsASAC that the "Close In" depariure pmcedure be used for only tliose depariures off of 29L and 29R over Minneapolis. For all other runways, the MA.SAC Operations Committee recommended the conti.nuation of the distant departure procedure, which is currently in place. Mendota Heights and Eagan voted no at the MASAC Operation Committee. (Please see MASAC Operations Mi.nutes and Agenda for May 24, 1996 that was included in your packet under Acl�nowledgements.) MASAC considered this recommendation at their meeting on Ma.y 28, 1996. No action was taken as this item was continued for further discussion in 7une. Since February, this item has been on hold while MASAC Operations committe� members awaited further analysis by the consultant, Evan Futtermann, of HNTB. Since that ti.me, the notion of testing new departures has given way to implementing the above described recommendation. There will be no test period, as we were leci to believe. On Wednesda.y eveni.ng, I will be prepared to discnss this item and how the various depariures affect Mendota. Heights. Review recommended procedures for Noise Abatement Departure Profiles and provide sta.ff and MASAC Representative with any direction. Notth Richfiled South Richfield Fort Snelling Bloomington Inver Grove Heights Mendota Neights Tota! � i' 1 �. t'�'"' � 'r ` ''� �% �� Cr• J j � MSP -1994 POPULATION COUNTS (DISTANT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES) POPUtATION DWELLINGS DNL60 DNL65 ON170 C1NI.75 :: • ON1.60 �N�65 DNL7i 40960 14410 8120 1410::..::•i:::r?i' 17570 6270 8960 2620 7420 520 `. :;:'r:'r:(i;;i:•: 4130 1120 2590 1670 0 0'r' :i:i:::•iii'•:: 1190 750 70 60 0 0:.::':�;:�:•i::i•i: 10 30 525D 1520 0 a:;';:;•}:•};:}::;•; 2360 680 7.9�0 0 0 0::.:::'::::i::::: 580 0 158D 1180 �' . 140 10:.::'(i;;}::•i;:}i' S30 500 ' 0 0 �\. 0 0:.:'::�:i::•:i�::•i: � -.. O ( 2700 0 ` 0. 0: :�:•:� :'•:'•: 1300 0 �j'�� 1210 630 40 0:.:•};:•;:•::(;{•}: 460 220 ,�j'• r.�.:�?:' "'.� 65,750 22,090 9,720 1,940 �ti'7�':•iii::?:? 28,230 9,570 4 !., �) ��`' MSP -1994 POPULATION COUNTS 2 `oU (CLOSE-1N DEPARTURE PROCEDURES WITH I�ENTICAL FIRST SEGMEN� 61 0 0 0 0 800 M5P -1994 POPU�ATION COUNTS (COMBINATION DEPARTURE PROCEDURES WlTH IDENTICA� FIRST SEGMENI) (CLOSE-IN DEPARTURE OFF OF RUNWAYS �jL &�:qR, DISTANT DEPARTURE OFF ALL OTHER RUNWAYS) C �.. `t � �U�No/rri �Y� �� O 't�' p y �l�Y r ��itoro��r �� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a~ � 11 :-� 0 a ¢ c> o � 0 0 iti w � v � 0 a a C 1 � 0 U � v � v 0 � a b � N A �P'�-P-i W �+P\FYF7 P\1P ZSZS l � �r-- —■` ' �r�� de,.__ s. � � � �� ' i � ' li �� June 10, 1996 To: .Airport Rela.tions Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator Subject: Discussion of Backsliding and NWA Fleet Conversion Plan DISCUSSION In recent months, the Commission has expressed a concern about "backsliding. " Backlsliding is when the amount of Sta.ge III aircraft operating out of MSP decreases as a percentage of total aircraft operations. Each month, in the Technical Adviser's Rep�rt, the percentage of Sta.ge III operations are noted. It has become apparent that the percentage of Stage III operations has slightly declined since September of 1995. The Commission inquired last month if Northwest Airlines, or all air carriers, were O obligatecl to continually increa.se theu� percentages of Stage III and whether pmmises, or contractual guarantees, were in place about backsliding. Lo and behold, on June 3, 1996, Northwest Airlines presented their Fleet Conversion Plan to the MSP Committee. (Please see attached Fleet Conversion Plan. ) U On the last page of this document, under History of NWA's Noise Agreements at 1VISP, there is discussion of backsliding. This item has also been discussed by the Northem Dal�ota County Airports Relations Coalition (NDCARC). NDCARC has asked Mendota Heights and Pagan to consider drafting a letter to MAC and NWA about backsliding and to request that MASAC place this item on their agenda. for discussion. Discuss backsliding and provide direction to staff. 0 4 .'� � �. � ', nf�¢3., .:i 2 ' 1y'.e.% �`fu3� : ��t.'. flC �.-� .` �,i=: j;o-..w ; �, �,. �'' -� �: � � �1`. .°� �. B t1�`.: ; , �..r: r„ � 1 '-.� � 6 � O) � v-- C \ 0 t�- � >, N � E �X O Q � N � O y-. �Q � � � � V U C � ttf .0 N � tII � � N AL' W � � � >, � �, � � � L Qi � � U Rf o .-• � O � � � � O Z � �❑ � v O 00 N P O(�• GO `� d' M d' t!') d'I N � v E Q � Z — � '�^ vI � +-► .�C .0 � � � O � =i t�6 O �� O � M O N � O N N � � 0 ►��r�.QoCi� 1 1 1 1 1 I Q • N r- tn (�) UAI Nt�-Md'1� � � o 0 M � � �� .� � � G � L .� Nd L��m W � a C ✓� � � o � O � � o M � N N a N ` C N � � O � � � ccs � � N � � L � � � � � � � � � .� � U C cv � O U .� Q � z a � � ' O � t() i � � � co rn rn � � � N � rn rn � rnl �t � � N � .•� � .-�. dy' � N 0��0 �� .-. ^ � N O � � r � c: 0 �I� .... ... N � � � M^O G^�� o:v:r. ��.•� � � � i i� i M� 0 � � .... �- � � o � _ � ��'� n' �- y �.. .�'.. � �..=1 � r- i- 1 1 � t; = M�� - �- �- � ..M.. ' � � �:-1 �"� O � � `-� N N �" v �•. N � � .� � O �. �� ¢ �`' . � � � � � � 'Q O C L � � � tII O � � •� �� O O � «� O O O O M O � � N C C O O � O .. O O � O � M O Q) � � = �C O .. N `, � � 'C N �" � N O i � C � d.� = a� r. r. °' � � r, r, � r;,, r a� �� m� �r�r�ou' o�r�otioo"'w '� Q � � � �� , � v� , � � , � , � z M �_ 1 N �� M � N N NI� � M OI~ � � e- � �- � i/� �) � o U� � M ' � � � ' �I N � M �) t ) � � v,M, p � ', � QO � N i(� d' � N COIN �� iIti M �j �� N � � � � co rn � r r M M i i rn rn � �I � � � t-- M O M � � � �'d'�d'� �v-�-M Z cfl n i � � L ((f � � � �. � , � � i/� C � i� � � C � M tn O O O O� �� ci p p N��'L � tA N� C ��rn r" C.) U M�' ��> r" (,°�� t.� �� a� �m'at`�•.C��aCr�-O� =�G��W � � � � � � � � � V � � � � � -� C N � N � .� t7" N � � N � C � v X N � N C� �. = .� N C � O ,�; v � O� L � Q. � � C � � � U V � � U� � � � � ❑ <r`.�' N � y.. � `o c � 0 ` � � N � N � C � � .0 � � .� 0 t6 .� N s � N .� •� � O 0 � Q � O O� U � G C 'a � � � � � C v/ � � tct N v, o .�C t� Q C � � � � C' � tQ 0 0 W 'Q C � C. O 0 r ..0 N � N .Q N ..-. m (6 O 'Q 'a ta '� 'Q tQ O O C 'Q � � � � � Z � 0 P- � � C N � � � � � 0 � � \ 0 N �i�"s ..Q y ; a� � �O C U � � � N p� O N � � N � �O � � N � � 'Q �L � � � � N � � O :._, N N � ` � � � � •C Z :.- � ti � O) � �. �. � � � � � L Qi v� �- ` v�i o � �' C �"' G�.. tII .'C 'C N N 0- � ��''''�� O U ,M O � � U C � O ,L- O � v- t6 = t/� � `C t� � .. � U v� � :� � ca � ��` °o O � p� t0 M N � O � � � � � � � � C � O _ � � o � � O O � � � e�- O � � � � C tII '' C � � .� � �� •3 Q- •�r tn C Q. (�,1 =' U -�-• � � �� N C U� — N t`6 O O� O O V 'C7 'C � 'Q tf •= '� t6 N � � � �— L L. .hs V L� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Z Z c� Z Z o � � � � N � � � 0 � � c 0 � a� a O N � N y-. �f � N � tL > � � � C C tII � Z tQ � � O .� N Q N s '� N U N O C O 'Q N � � � � Z � � � •. r � �� - -•- - - - - - - - - - �- - -� - -•- - - - - � -,- �-, - - T'he City Council formed the Airport Relations Commission on Apri120, 1993 in order to better impact the decisions made by the Metropolitan Airports Commission , the Federal Aviation Admini- stration and the State with respect to operations at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The creation of this citizen's advi- sory body was primarily to assist City Council on matters pertaining to airport noise and operations at MSP, to monitor rules, procedures and programs which impact the air noise situations in Mendota. Heigbts and to make recommendations to City Council to mitigate the City's air noise. The Airport Relations Commission prepared and proposed an Air- port Noise Plan of Action which was presented to City Council in 1994. The Airp�rt Noise Plan of Action was intended to guide the efforts of the City as we address various airport related issues an an on-going basis. The Airport Noise Plan of Action included six broad "focus" issues, as follows: ; ' -'Noise Reduction Through Modified TakeoffProcedures '. ,tIeightened Awareness of Mendota Heights Noise Concerns 3. Monitor MSP Long Term Comprehensive Planning Process 4. Assure Rapid Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft 5. Feasibility of Achieving Noise Reduction Through Litigation 6. Air Noise Mitigation Tbrough Sound Insulation The Plan of Action is now almost two years old and the Airport Relations Commission has spent the last several months updating the Plan of Action for recommendation to the City Council. As part of this updating process, the Commission reviewed their strategic goals and accomplishments over the last two years and would like to report their progress to the community. The Commission has been very active in their efforts to reduce noise through Modified TakeoffProcedures, especially in theirresearch and advocacy on three issues - Non-Simultaneous Takeoff Procedures, Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime TakeoffProcedures and Adoprion of "Close In" vs. Distant Depariure Procedures. For the last two years, the Commission has been advising Council and staff to advocate for a change in the takeoff procedures at MSP during "non-simultaneous" departure procedures, or non-peak hours, especially night time. The Commission has worked to review FAA tower orders and advise Council and staff on requesting a revision to current operating procedures that would ensure aircraft stay in the center of air noise corridor during non-simultaneous deparlures. This will keep aircraft out of residential neighborhoods, especially at night during non-peak operations. The City of Mendota Heights is currently awaiting a ruling on a new �` -�r order for non-simultaneous departures that would direct aircraft t, � a runway centerline heading during non-simultaneous depar- tuies that would keep aircraft in the center of the corridor. The Commission has also worked on requesting Mandatory Night- iliili; 1 a}:�Oii R;C�`.!;1:ili�`i.' 1�1 �':;?_[ i"` ?'i''1 .', i�OISB �(�Il�i'ci1C^ 0'1C'' Mendota Heibi-�ts. OftCn referred to as"Shoulder riours", this request would limit departures at MSP to Stage III iype aircra$ only, between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Stage III type aircraft are the newer and quieter models of jet aircraft. Currently, only Northwest Airlines voluntarily agrees to fly Stage III only between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The Commission is assisting the City Council in attempting to expand this restriction. The Commission has also been hard at work in reviewing the Metropolitan Airports Commission's work on "Close In" vs. "Distant Departure Procedures." Basically, Close In depaztures work to get an aircraft higher, faster as soon as it leaves the airport. In a Distant Procedure departure, aircraft level offat 1,000 feet so that the engines are not so loud, however, they then "power up" for a second climb some distance from the airport. The current procedure that is used is the Distant Procedure. In the neaz future, the Metropolitan Airports Commission will be considering a recommendation on utilizing Close In procedures. The Commission is closely monitoring this proposed change in operations. The Airport Relations Commission has also worked hard to heighten the awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns, including the completion of a refrigerator magnet distribution cam- paign, work on newsletter articles and newspaper editorials, commu- nications with regional and legislarive contacts, and participation on the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Commission. The Airport Relations Commission continues to advocate for more representation on the Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Coun- cil (MASAC) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). The Commission was also actively involved in the recently completed Dual Track Airports Study, which recommended against relocating the airport to the Hastings site and promoted the expansion of the eacisting MSP Airport. Their advocacy included efforts to prevent a Third Parallel Runway, conversion to all Stage III aircraft and in- creased air noise mitigation efforts for MSP cornmuniries. The Airports Relations Commission is a seven member, volunteer citizens advisory commission that meets the second Wednesday of every month at 7 p.m. at City Hall, Large Conference Room. Their meetings are open to the public who aze encouraged to attend or to contact City Hall at 452-1850. The Commission looks forward to your input as they continue their efforts in noise reduction, noise mitigation and awareness of auport operations and their impact on Mendota Heights. Air Noise a Problem? When air noise becomes unbeazable and disrupts your family's lifestyle, the Met- ropolitan Airports Commission wants to hear from you. call the MAC air noise complaint line at 726-9411. If possible, when you call MAC please be prepared to ,: . +a: i:�`�;.� .:�r;ion o�: .une; 1,=ation, di rectiun anci aircraft type. � PAGE 2 HEIGHTS IiIGHLITES May, 1996 1 � � � � � � � � � � � � � �' During the most recent legislative session, the Legislature acted on a bill for the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport (MSP) that determined the airport would not move to Dakota County, that it would be expanded in its current location. T'he Mendota Heights City Council andAirportRelations Commissioncloselymonitoredthis legislationwhiletakingtheposition that the Dual Track Study should have been completed, as scheduled, in 1997 in order that all pertinent facts could be analyzed and that the Environmental Impact Statement could be completed properly. Of importance to Mendota Heights, language was included in the bill to prohibit a third parallel runway, which would have been aimed at Mendota Heights. Key provisions of the bill include: �- The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is prohibited from building or ac- quiring land for a major new airport to replace MSP. Long range planning to make recommendations to the Legislature on the need for a new airport is permitted. �3- Requires MAC to prohibit the use of non-Stage III aircraft at MSP after December 31, 1999. '� Requires MAC to develop a plan to direct general aviarion traffic to reliever airports. � Prohibits MAC from building a replacement passenger terminal on the west side of the present airport without legislarive approval. �- Requires MAC to enter into a contract with affected cities providing that the MAC will not build a third parallel runway. (Mendota Heights is considered an affected city.) �- Requires a report on the environmental effects of expanding the airport to accommo- date 600,000 to 750,000 operations per year. �- Requires MAC to report annually on the operations, equipment, delay times and technological advancements that affect aviation. '�- Requires MAC to spend no less than $185 million form 1996 to 2002 for noise miti- garion and properiy acquisition. � Requires MAC to develop a noise mitigation plan as a result of the new Norkh/South runway construction. �- Establishes an urban revitalization and stabilization zone and authorizes cities to es- tablish housing replacement districts. �' ; � �,, ' ' . . � As part of the Airport Bill of 1996, the Metropolitan Airports Commission was in- siructed to develop a Noise Mitigation Plan for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, including sound insulation and noise mirigation efforts. To address this leg- islative directive, the Metropolitan Airports Commission has formed the MSP Mitiga- rion Committee to develop this plan prior to September 15, 1996. Mr. Steve Cramer, MAC Commissioner and former Minneapolis Council Member, will chair this MSP Mitigation Committee and each of the. neighboring communities will have their Mayor on this committee. Mayor Chazles E. Mertensotto attended the opening, introductory meeting of the MSP Mitigation Committee on May 16,1996 and will be attending all meetings of this com- mittee on beha�f ofMendcta Hei�hts. A?�_vor Mertensotto will be supported by the City Council, the Airport Relations Commission and city staff throughont this process to ad- dress increased levels of sound insulation, noise mitigation efforts and operational changes at an expanded MSP. Your thoughts on the mitigation of air noise in Mendota Heights aze welcome. The Airports Relations Commission meets the second Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Lazge Conference Room, or you may contact City Hall at 452- 1850. Heights Highlites is a government news- letter distributed to residents to inform them on events and activities that affect Mendota Heights. All articles, layout and production are done by city staff. _ If you know any residents who are not receiving the Heights Highlites, please in- vit:, tliem to contact Ci�� Hall, 452-1850, to be placed on the newsletter mailing list. Sprin.g Clean Up a "Sinashing" Success On May 18, the city held its Second An- nual Spring Clean Up Day behind Mendota Plaza. Trucks and dumpsters from various local garbage haulers accepted everything from tires to sheet rock to TVs to broken bicycles. City staff estimate that over 200 car and truck loads of junk were brought by our residents to Mendota Plaza. The fiuniture truck alone crushed over S,OOQ pouncls of broken or worn-out furniture! A one-person camera crew fiom NDC4 Cable filmed much of the event. With a clear sky and a high temperature in the 80s, the weather could not have been better for this event. Also, as an integral part of our Annual Spring Clean Up, JR's Appliances picked up "curbside" ma old appliances from our residents on �i. morning of May 20. The city would like to thank the following people and organizations for making our Second Annual Spring Clean Up a huge success: Paster Enterprises, owner and operator of Mendota Plaza Subway at Mendota Plaza The Southwest Review NDC4 Cable First Impression Eagan Sanitation Aagard Mendota Heights Rubbish Service Midway Electronics Scrapbusters BFI Tire Recyclers JR's Appliance Disposal Dakota County Environmental Management City staff (especially our sun-burned volunteers!) . Thanks also goes to our Mayor who spent several hours on Saturday helping residents put their junk in the appropriate dumpsters. Most of all, thanks to the city's residen��- whose enthusiastic response to this event 1� already established the Annual Spring Clean Up as a City traditionl