02-02-88 agenda•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1998
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
I. 7:00-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED WIDENING OF 66TH
STREET AS PART OF NEW I-35W BRIDGE OVER 66TH
STREET AND PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 9
II. 8:00-8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL TO UPGRADE FOUR
POLICE CORPORAL POSITIONS TO SERGEANT
POSITIONS WITHIN POLICE DIVISION OF PUBLIC
SAFETY DEPARTMENT
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 10
III. 8:15-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ITEMS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 11
IV. 9:00-9:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF EXPANDING WAYS TO EXPAND
COMMUNICATION EFFORTS WITHIN RICHFIELD
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 12
9:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
I~
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON
REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 12
Agenda February 2, 1998
Issue Statement:
Discussion of ways to expand communication efforts within Richfield.
Background:
The Richfield City Council has previously directed staff to expand ways of
communication within Richfield. The Council authorized the general concept of
developing the Richfield Community Feedback Network (CFN) at the Council meeting
of January 26, 1998. Some suggested outcomes of the CFN would include receiving
feedback from residents on the following items:
• the effectiveness of City communication efforts;
• adequacy of information about projects;
• requests for services;
• customer service;
• City services; and
• items of particular concern regarding development proposals.
The operation framework for the CFN has not been established but might include the
following elements:
• Volunteers from the community would be requested to serve as members of the
network. A special emphasis would be placed on including individuals not
previously involved with City government.
• Meetings would be held on a quarterly or bimonthly basis facilitated by Council, staff
or others, i.e., League of Women Voters. The group meetings would be organized
more like focus group discussions and not as a board or commission.
• Mechanisms would be established to assure network members would receive
detailed information on community issues they identify as important.
• A mechanism would be established to encourage feedback and report that feedback
received from network members to City Council and staff to assist with developing
and improving public policy and services.
• Network members would be requested to meet with their "home" groups; either
neighbors, friends, club members, organization members.
• Existing community organizations, such as the League of Women Voters and the
Richfield Community Council, could be encouraged to become partners in the
feedback network.
Recommended Motion:
• Ways to expand communication efforts within Richfield is presented for Council
discussion and additional direction regarding establishing a communication feedback
network is requested.
Basis of Recommendation:
The Council has consistently encouraged development of additional methods of
communicating and receiving feedback from the public.
2. Development of feedback mechanisms provide an opportunity for the Council, staff
and commissions to receive important information from an additional group of
individuals from within the City. It is important to point out that the network would
be an additional source of information and is not meant to replace any existing
feedback or communication systems.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council may decide to discuss a wide variety of options for implementing this
concept.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for discussion at the Study Session of February 2, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
r~
u
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. ii
Agenda February 2, 1998
Issue Statement:
Status of airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following:
• Runway 4-22 Litigation
Now that City Council has determined to reject the FAA's offer to terminate litigation,
the City's legal brief has been submitted to the Eighth Circuit Court. The FAA will now
need to reply to Richfield's brief. They have already asked for an extension period for
this reply.
The City of Richfield will then need to prepare a written rebuttal to the FAA's reply.
After receiving the rebuttal, an appellate judge will listen to oral arguments before
making a decision on the suit. A decision may be made by late summer.
• Proposed Runway 17-35
Met Council Meeting: Don Brauer, Jim Prosser and Dawn Weitzel met with the
Metropolitan Council's Transportation Committee on January 12. The topic was only
permitted 30 minutes on the agenda. The presentation given was strongly community
focused. Prosser advised the committee how deeply involved the City was in efforts to
retain viability within Richfield boundaries. He talked about Richfield Rediscovered,
commercial redevelopment, how the City's housing market is booming, and the positive
responses to the community survey. A description of low frequency noise was then
given, along with Fidell's report analysis of low frequency impacts Richfield will
experience after construction of 17-35. Brauer presented Richfield's comprehensive
plan compared to the new noise mitigation plan that needs to be developed. The
meeting concluded by asking for aid by the Met Council in the areas of: comprehensive
plan review, assistance in the development of a mitigation plan for the City, assistance
in the research and development of standards for mitigation of low frequency noise, and
aid the City in monitoring health impacts. Few comments were received.
EQB Meeting: Staff is in the process of setting up a meeting with the Environmental
Quality Board's (EQB) March meeting. They, along with the Met Council, will make the
final decision on MAC's Environmental Impact Statement. Don Brauer and Jim Prosser
most likely will present to EQB staff in February, to technical representatives the week
before the Board meeting, and finally at the Board meeting itself. The presentation will
follow the same format as the meeting with Met Council's Transportation Committee.
Jon Larson, EQB Transportation Planner, has been very helpful.
Your City's Airport Q&A: Citizen response to the "frank" airport Q&A section on low
frequency noise impacts, has been very positive. Residents know that their best
interest is in mind and tell staff to "keep up the good work." Three people have stated
that they would like to be more involved in the process.
Low Frequency Noise Drop Piece Up-Date: A February 1998 Airport Q&A has been
created for distribution at the Remodeling Fair. In addition to explaining the noise
mitigation strategy, the City will be requesting residential feedback and spokespersons
for this issue. There will be a sign-up sheet, at the Remodeling Fair, for any
residents/businesses interested in becoming more involved in this issue.
The City staff is requesting Council feedback on the ideas of hiring a community
organizer to coordinate and facilitate meetings with residents regarding the noise
mitigation. In addition, the Planning Commission had the following suggestions:
Can we do an "extra" addition of Your City devoted entirely to airport issues and
specifically the mitigation response? Why or why not and if so, when?
• We should avoid the word "plan" and use "strategy" or "response" instead, as in
Airport Mitigation Strategy. "Plan" connotes adone-deal.
• Does the City cable channel "scroll" list Mitch Hadley's show? If not, it should.
* As a means of getting the message out to as wide an audience as possible, we
should consider a brief video -- like the new housing video -- on the airport issue.
Low Frequency Noise Cable N Broadcast: With the help of Mitch Hadley, the City
was able to produce a program on the impacts of low frequency noise. Five panel
members were present to discuss this issue, they are: Don Brauer, Mitch Hadley, Dan
Linnihan, Bill Killian, and Dawn Weitzel. The panel talked about: the proposed new
runway, what it will mean to residents of eastern Richfield, if the MAC has been
cooperative, and what people can do to become involved. You can check out the
program in February. A similar program is being scheduled with the Richfield League of
Women Voters cable show.
Minneapolis' Reaction to Low Frequency Noise: A couple of months ago, Sandy
Fidell contacted a Minneapolis airport consultant regarding low frequency noise impacts
Minneapolis will receive with the operations of the north-south runway. When asked
recently about their interest in the contour, the consultant stated that Minneapolis is not
interested in finding out information on a low frequency noise contour. The consultant
was advised that Minneapolis' residents had been calling Richfield for information.
• MASAC Meeting
At its January 27 meeting, MASAC was asked to determine objectives for 1998.
MASAC's Operations Committee has suggested the following objectives:
* Provide information to the MAC in their efforts to communicate changes in
• operations due to construction schedules to the surrounding communities, as
well as to the media.
* Evaluate departure compliance through the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
and make any unnecessary changes to the relevant procedures.
. Review the ANOMS system. and noise monitors. Evaluate the need and
replacement of additional RMTs. Also evaluate portable monitoring capabilities.
* Request air traffic control personnel to make a presentation on how MSP
operations are conducted.
* ONGOING DISCUSSIONS:
- Providing incentives to carriers in acquiring and operating factory made
Stage III aircraft.
- Investigate how GPS and other navigational aids could help alleviate
aircraft noise.
- Review of NADP procedures and compliance.
- Continue Part 150 contour generation review.
Please tell Kristal Stokes or Dawn Weitzel about any additional objectives that you
would like to see MASAC accomplish in the following year.
• New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
No new report.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport issues.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding airport concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another date
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of February 2, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame .Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
L.J
~io~199'1
~'1P'S`ia ed
Abby visor's
Technic^ Ad
ReP°rt
~!-
x_
•
i
,.
- rtifONTHLY,trlEETIJVG - :Lletropolitan aircraft Svund abatement Council
\,, Minneapolis / St. Paul International airport
Clu,lrnvur:
Ruben P. JoA avm
/ICr Chrurrrum:
Thrrn>t~ HueR
&rnrnrul AJvl v,r
Roy t'uhrmann
Acrlnr( Srrrrrun•.'
Nellwt Scnrrnltskl
Auhnrnr EPOn rs:
Bean Batcs
Air rnrnspnn .issr,c~iunnn:
P,w Nr(:nw
A[PA:
Charles W. carry Jr.
City of Bfni,mmrmn:
Petrone I.ee
Vern Wllme
cirr nj Bu,n n,nr:
Ed Plater
City of F.,eM:
Tom Egan
City n>/'lm~er Cnn~r Hnenrs:
Dale Hammnm
City nj.Nerrlum Hnenn:
JW Smith
Clrv nj.NlMrnPnIIS:
James 8. Semn
John Richter
Joe Lee
Iudllh Dndae
Cin• of Rieh/irirl:
Krtstal Stokes
Dawn Weitzel
Cin•nJSr. Gw,s?ark:
Robert Adrcws
city of Sr. Paul:
C. Smt1 Bunin
Thomas H. Hueq
Grol Ann NcCulrc
Ddtu A,r Lnrs Inc.:
Rleh K{dwell
Frderu! ErOrrss.•
Daa DeBord
F~drral Anunrur Arlrnlm.rrmurn:
Bruce Wagoaer -
Rooakl GIauD
NAC Smlj•
Dlek Keinz
.HBAA:
.Robert P. Johnson
.Nrraba Nnnhwest Arriink:
Daniel Sheehan
.Hrrmpr,iirun A,rnnns C,xnmr+srrn.~
Comml$ioner Altoa Gasper
S1N Air Nutn,rrtl Guu+d:
Major Roy J. Sitetka -
,VnrrhwrrtAlrlinesr '
Nark 5aimen
Jeaatkr Sayre
St. Paul Clrrunher r~Cummrn•c
Crai; Wrack
Sun Counrn~Arrlinrc
Dale Kanra
UnueJ .{vlinrs lnr.:
BIB YantH7 -
Umrrd Prur'ri Srn,rr:
N&e ('ever
U.S. Arr F,nr Resen•r:
C~ptaln Uarid J. Gerken
Metropolitan airports Commission
Declaration of Purposes
1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience,
and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international. national, Mate,
and local, in and through this state; promote the, efficient, safe, and economical
handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international
programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the
metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all
aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and
effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area;
2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact
from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement,
control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and
3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the
public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports.
Metropolitan aircraft Sound abatement Council
Statement of Purpose
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities
adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a
public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of
the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and
evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of
the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective
procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation 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 aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions
initiated and taken to alleviate the problem: ,
Metropolitan aircraft Sound abatement Council
Representation
The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and.governmental bodies which by reason of their statutorti authority and
responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users,
have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User
Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and
Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number.
The Airport ?•t-hour/Poise Horlirse is 726-94/I.
Complaints to the hotline do nor result in changes
in Airport activity, but provide a public sounding
board and airport information ou[let. The hotline
is staffed during busirsrss lu~urs, .Monday -Friday
This report is prepared and printed in house by
Chad Leqve, ANOMS Specialist
Questions or comments may be directed to:
MAC -Aviation Noise Programs
Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Mly 55.150.
Tel: (612) 735-6331, Fax: (613) 725-6310
ANP Home Page: http://www.macavsa[.orE
,tiletropolitan airports Commission .-t,viation Vaise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Operations and Complaint Summary
November 1997
Operations Summary -All Aircraft
Runway Arrival % Use Departure °Io Use
04 N/A N/A N/A N/A
22 N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 N/A N/A N/A N/A
30 N/A N/A N/A N/A
MSP November Fleet Mix Percentage
Stage Scheduled Scheduled ANOMS ANOMS
1996 1997 Count 1996 Count 1997
Stage 2 45.9% 38.0% 44.4% N/A
Stage 3 54.1% 62.0% 55.6% N/A
Airport November Complaint Summary
Airport 1996 1997
MSP 726 416
Airlake 0 0
Anoka 0 5
Crystal 0 0
Flying Cloud 4 3
Lake Elmo 0 0
St. Paul 1 4
Misc. 0 0
TOTAL 731 428
•
November .Average Daily Operations Summary -FAA Airport Traffic Record
1996 1997
Air Carrier 800 819
Commuter 315 308
G.A. l43 l54
Military 5 9
. TOTAL 1263 1290
Aviation Noise & Satellite Prcxrams Pas*e l
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary
November 1997
Complaint Summary by City
City Arrival Departure Total Percentage
Arden Hills 0 1 1 0.2%
Bloomington 0 7 7 1.8%
Burnsville 0 25 25 6.2%
Eagan 37 15 52 12.8%
Eden Prairie 1 2 3 0.7%
Edina 1 14 15 3.7%
Inver Grove Heights 30 47 77 19.0%
Mendota Heights 2 25 27 6.7%
Minneapolis 39 127 166 41.0%
Minnetonka 1 0 1 0.2%
Plymouth 1 0 ~ 1 0.2%
Richfield 2 5 7 1.8%
South St. Paul 0 1 L 0.2%
St. Paul 11 3 14 3.5%
Sunfish Lake 0 8 8 2.0%
Total 125 280 405 100%
Time of Day
Nature of Complaint
Time Total Nature of Complaint Total
00:00 - 05:59 12 Excessive Noise 376
06:00 - 06:59 13 Early/Late 24
07:00 - 11;59 .89 Low Flying 2
12:00 - 15:59 46 Structural Disturbance 1
16:00 - 19:59 89 Helicopter 1
20:00 - 21:59 84 Ground Noise. 11
22:00 -.22:59. 55 Engine Run-up 0
23:00 - 23:59 28 Frequency 1
Total 416 Total 416
•
•
•
Page ? Aviation poise & Satellite Programs
::;
1 Metropolitan Airports Cummission
Available Time for Runway Use
Tower Log Reports -November 1997
All Hours
0%
38% 2%
27% - _-.
~-
~± _~ _ =,~~22
12 ~,, o
04
1%
Ir
10%
3%
8%
70%
52%
Nighttime Hours
0%
~:
12'
04
2%
•
12%
30 ~ i`
1%
)2
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Pace 3
~,
•
December, 1997
MASAC
Abbreviated
Technical Advisor's Report
~„ Minneapolis / St. Paul International tlirport
•
•
•
._ .-~~;~
- IV101VTHLY rVtEETIiVG - .Vtetropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Cliurrnxur:
Robrrt P. Jnhavm
Yrr Cluunmm:
Thrma~ HUfR
rirhmral .(rh•crnn
Ror }'uhrmann
,~irrme Srrrrrun~:
Nelhrsa 5covmnckl
.•l irbnrnt Erprr.u:
Brtan Bata
.fir rrtrnspnrt Assrx•runr,n:
Paul Jlc(:nw
A(J'A:
Chariea W. Curry Jr.
Cirv nj Rlrxxnrnernn:
Petrone Lee
Vern Wllmx
Cin• aj BumsrJlr.'
FA Porter
Cin• nJFuRrrn:
Tom Egan
Cin• njlm~rr Gnny Hrrxnrs:
Dak Hamnnns
Cirvnf.NrrxlrxuHri,ehts:
JW Smith
Cirv nf.Nirureupniis:
James 8. Semn
John Richter
Joe Lee
ludlth DndRe
Cin of Rich/irlr/:
Krtstal Stokes
Dawn Weitzel
Cin• of St. Lwr.r Avk:
Robert Adrewa
Cirv njSr. Puul: •
CSmtt Bunln
Thomas H. HueR
Carol Ann NcGulre
Deltu Arr Linea lnr.:
Rleh Kkfwell
frrlerul Erprrss:
Daa DeBord
FeJerd Ariunrn Admrxr.rrmnnn:
Bruce Wagoaer
• Raab Glaab ~ .
NAC Sml/
Dlek Keinz
.HRAA:
Robert P. Johavn
.4letaba,Vnrthwesr Airlink:
Daniel Shtehan
.Hrtmpnlitun Airports Crxnmrssrrxr:
Canmiatbnv-Altoad:asper,~
.NN Ait Nruinnu! Gurud:
Major Roy J. shetka
,Vrxrhwrst Arrlinrr
Nark Salmen
Jeooder Sayre
Sr. Paul Chutnher of Commen•e
CniR Wruek
Sun Cuunrn•Airliner:
DWe Itnriva
UnueJ Avlinrx lnr.:
Bllf YanLLs
Umrrd Purr•rl Sm•rrr.
Nike Cerer ~-
US Arr f nr Rrrrn•r:
C~ptaln Uarid J. Gerken
iVietropoiitan Airports Commission
Declaration of Purposes
l.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, com•enience,
and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international. national, state,
and local, in and through .this state; promote the efficient. safe, and economical
handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this 'state in national and international
programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the
metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all
aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and
effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area;
2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact
from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement,
control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and
3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the
public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Statement of Purpose
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities
adjoining Minneapolis-Si. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a
public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of
the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and
evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for tre :uieviation of
the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective
procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and
of atrcraft 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 aircraft noise nuisance and .in respect to suggestions made and actions
initiated and taketiio alleviate the problem: ~ •
iVletropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Representation
The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statu:~r•• aatrority and
responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their stares ,;.s auport users,
have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called [Jser
Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and
Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number.
The Airport 2~-hour Noise Hotline is 726-94/ 1.
Cvmplairtts to the hotline do not result in changes
in Airport uctivity, but provide a public sounding
hoard and airport information outlet. The hotline
is scatted during husinrss hours, IYlontluv - fritltty
This tLpOrt is prepared and Cn;tteC in house by
Chad Legve, ANOMS 5~::::W~st
Questions or comments may be directed to:
MAC -Aviation Noise Programs
Minneapolis j St. Paul International Airport
6040 28th avenue South
Ytinneapolis. V1N 55450
Tei: (612) 725-6331. Fax: (61.) 7?5-63IU
ANP Home Page: http:;;www.macavsa[.ore
Metropolitan airports Commission Aviation Noise~Programs ~ .
•
:Metropolitan Airports Commission
Operations and Complaint Summary
December 1997
•
Operations Summary -All Aircraft
Runway Arrival % Use Departure % Use
04 N/A N/A N/A N/A
22 N/A N/A N/A N/A
12' N/A N/A N/A N/A
30 N/A N/A N/A N/A
MSP DecemberFleet Mix Percentage
Scheduled Scheduled ANOMS ANOMS
Stage 1996 1997 Count 1996 .Count 1997
Stage 2 43.1 cIc 38.3% 44.4% N/A
Stage 3 56.9% 61.7% 55.6°lo N/A
Airport DecemberComplaint Summary
•
Airport 1996 1997
MSP 566 479
Airlake 0 0
Anoka 0 4
Crystal 0 0
Flying Cloud 3 4
Lake Elmo 0 0
St. Paul 2 2
Misc. 0 1
TOTAL 571 490
DecemberOperations Summary -Airport Directors Office
1996 1997
Air Carrier 8l9 85 l
Commuter 310 322
G.A. :. 128 l50
Military,.: 3 8
' TOTAL`'; II 1260 II 1331
Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro~_rams
Pao-*e l
.Metropolitan .Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary
December 1997
Complaint Summary ny City
City Arrival Departure Total Percentage
Apple Valley 0 1 I 0.29c
Bloomington 0 4 4 0.9~k
Burnsville 2 i2 14 3.1~~c
Eagan S9 14 73 l S.99c
Eden Prairie 0 4 4 0.99c
Edina ~ 0 7 7 I.S~Ic
Inver Grove Heights 13 73 86 18.89c
Maple Grove 2 0 2 0.49c
Mendota Heights 7 2S 32 7.O~Ic
Minneapolis 43 161 204 44.49c
Plymouth 1 , 0 i 0.2~Ic
Richfield 0 S 5 1. I %
South St. Paul 0 2 2 0.4%
St. Louis Park 1 0 1 0.2%
St. pawl 13 4 17 3.7%
Stillwater 0 1 1 0.2°Ic
Sunfish Lake l 4 S 1.1%
Total 142 317 459 100%
Time. of Day
Nature of Complaint
Time Total Nature of Complaint Total
00:00 - OS:S9 16 Excessive Noise 421
06:00 - 06:59 16 Early/Late 31
07:00 - 11:59 113. Low Flying 2
12:00 - IS:S9 49 Structural Disturbance 3
16:00 - 19:59 118 Helicopter Z
20:00 - 21:59 84 Ground Noise l8
22:00 - 22:59 S7 Engine Run-up 2
23:00 - 23:59 26 Frequency 0
Total 479 Total 479
t
•
•
•
. ,.,. ~ : d
Pale ? Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro~Trtms
•
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Available Time for Runway. Use
Tower Log Reports -December 1997
~~ . -~
:, , < ~ v~~
42°Io 1%
--_~ 22~
~ 04
0% ----
11%
1%
2%
1%
8%
~Il Hours...
0%
~~-~30 v
\~'~ ~ 79%
~-
_------1~'~-~-__
Nighttime Hours
0%
1%
i
~ _
\~~._~~22
12~ G` ~,\\
/\ \~~ ` / J ~\`\
,C~ ~~~~~,30
.,;~
~~~~ ~~
04 ~;- 96%
U
91%
-- %
.wiuticm Noise c~c Satellite Programs
~.
Pa«~ 3-~'
r'
~ ~I ~I ~
~ '~
c
.~
0
U
~ ~
a ~
f S1NI6"Id4VOJ dU H3HlNi1N
s
~~
s;
N
,y
p
~,
•~
'o
9
i
r~
i
~~J
d
~~
I
7
7
~.
~~
7
n
~~
yG
7
~ ~
T
i
r~
i
v~
r~
~j
'a
r~
i
r
2
9y
~s
i
T
~G
O
i.r
C~
^1
`~
W
V `
~~
^
S.r
C~ ,
Cy
C
O
~~
~~
C
O
Q
n'~ ~ r '~ ~' _ Directions
1996 Legislative Action
• Incorporated in the Noise Mitigation
Committee October 1996 Recommendations
• ... "the corporation shall prohibit operation at
Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport
of aircraft not complying with stage 3 noise
levels after December 31, 1999: '
• MAC is implementing through:
MSP Field Rules
Lease Agreements
Loan Covenants
Ordinance is not required by the
Minnesota Legislature
~ ~ A ~ A ~ '- Implementation
Stage 2Non-compliance
• Incorporated in the Noise Mitigation
Committee October 1996 Recommendations
• Airline Operating Agreements for all
Signatory Airlines, Charters and Cargo
Northwest Airlines -Loan Covenants
Stage 2 Utilization requirements
Scheduled night time compliance
Airline Operating Agreement
• Sun Country- Lease agreement
• MAC will also require any other operators
to meet the requirements of the Operating
Agreement
All Signatory Airlines, Charters & Cargo Operating
Agreements will be completed within the next six months
' A iT A C' A !~ ~ Research
Noise Reduction Studies
NASA RESEARCH INITIATIVES
•Noise-Reducing Nozzle for supersonic Airliners
• Engine nacelle acoustic liners
• Industrial Partners for Noise Reduction
• NASA Administrator's 21st Century Goals
• Overall Research Projects
Pushing the Technology Frontier
For Global Transportation Needs
.NASA TESTS NOISE-REDUCING NOZZLE FOR
SUPERSONIC AIRLINERS
Drucella Andersen Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 31, 1994
Michael Mewhinney Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.
RELEASE: 94-14
NASA is evaluating an advanced exhaust nozzle concept that could reduce noise
made by 21st century supersonic jet airliners to the level of today's new subsonic
jets without affecting takeoff performance.
The wind tunnel tests at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.,
uses an experimental nozzle attached to the rear of a one-tenth scale model of a jet
engine. The subscale engine simulates the exhaust of a future supersonic airliner
under takeoff conditions. Jet- engine noise comes from a plane's exhaust or
"plume" of tacrbulent air in its wake.
"This future supersonic airliner undoubtedly will have to comply with Federal
Aviation Administration regulations, so we're trying to make it as quiet as future
subsonic airliners, "said Ames Project Manager Paul Soderman.
The nozzle is an "ejector suppressor" type designed by GE Aircraft Engines,
Cincinnati. It scoops in outside air and mixes it with the high-energy jet exhaust.
That lowers the speed of the exhaust and consequently, the noise.
In the tests, engineers ,use a laser and an infrared video system to measure the
engine's exhaust flow. They also employ a pair of microphones mounted on 15-
foot struts to measure the noise. The struts move back and forth beside the nozzle
to obtain data.
"We know how much noise a jet engine makes in our wind tunnel," said Soderman,
an aeronautical and acoustical engineer. "We want to learn how much noise it
makes with an advanced suppressor on."
"We're also testing the engine's thrust loss caused by using the ejector suppressor,
because thrust loss affects a plane's takeoff performance," Soderman added. "If we
can keep the loss below 5 percent, we will be very pleased."
The nozzle tests in the 40- by 80-foot test section of Ames' National Full-Scale
Aerodynamics Complex are the first in a scheduled series. They are all part of
NASA's High-Speed Research Program, which is conducting research to provide
technology for an environmentally compatible, economically practical next-
generation supersonic transport.
•
i Structural Acoustics Branch Functional Statement
The STRUCTURAL ACOUSTICS BRANCH conducts research to understand and
control interior noise and its effects on aircraft, rotorcraft, and spacecraft
structures, passengers, and crew. A major objective of the research is to develop
validated analytical models of sound transmission through complex structures and
within vehicle interiors that can form the basis of design tools for interior noise
prediction and control. Further, the Branch is developing advanced active and
passive noise control concepts for vehicles of conventional, advanced metallic, and
composite materials.
In the area of sonic fatigue, SAB conducts research to understand, predict, and
control the response of vehicle structures of advanced metallic and composite
materials to intense acoustic loads. Engine nacelle acoustic liners are another
research area where experiments and analyses are performed to improve
understanding and predict the magnitude of noise reduction as a result of
specialized duct absorbing materials for both engine inlets and hot engine
exhausts.
In support of human response to noise, SAB conducts. atmospheric propagation
research to improve prediction of generated noise and sonic booms at long
distances. SAB also supports subjective acoustics research aimed at establishing
verified, quantifiable noise criteria for community noise impact and passenger
comfort and acceptance. The research utilizes unique facilities for simulating the
noise and vibration environments of flight structures as well as passenger and crew
compartments.
Industrial Research Partners
The Technology
•
Acoustics is a fully four dimensional phenomenon (three space dimensions plus
time). Thus, its computation from the basic governing equations has only recently
been .attempted. However, researchers at NASA Langley Research Center have
developed techniques whereby quite complicated geometries can be evaluated for
noise radiation and reduction concepts with quite modest computational resources.
Although this technology is still in the developmental stages, the understanding of
noise sources which has been developed as well as the ability to conduct acoustic
experiments at a computer terminal represent a significant breakthrough in acoustic
technology which has wide applications.
Options for Commercialization
NASA seeks industrial partners with noise reduction or design for noise needs in
commercial products which can be met by the available computational
aeroacoustic technology. Although this capability was developed with aircraft
noise applications in mind, it has many benefits outside the aircraft industry. For
example, researchers at Eastern Virginia Medical School have recently patented a
non-intrusive method for diagnosis of airway .blockages. This technique, which
was developed in collaboration with NASA Langley, is now in use in hospitals.
This technology opportunity is part of the NASA Technology Transfer Program.
The objective of this program is to ensure that NASA-developed technology will
have maximum benefit in the private sector.
See Working With NASA Langley: The Technology Transfer Process for more
details.
RELEVANTNASA GOALS (#3 & #4)
Our third goal is to reduce emissions of future aircraft by a factor of three
within 10 years and by a factor of five within 20 years.
Our environmental goals are stretch goals. We have this goal on emissions, and a
goal on noise. We publicize them to stimulate people, to stretch the imagination
and the creativity of our researchers. We need to keep the global competition in
mind, and we want to lead the way. We do not have the technology to meet the
goals today and so they should not be used as a guide for unrealistic regulations.
However, by pursuing these goals we will determine what is feasible and what is
required, such that environmental regulations do not impose inappropriate safety or
cost burdens.
I'd like to digress a minute to describe this with more technical detail -- particularly
as it relates to our research for future supersonic transport aircraft. In our High-
speed Research program we are using a parallel approach to address
environmental impact.
On one hand we are developing impact assessments of aircraft emissions on the
atmosphere, using scientific experts ,worldwide with the best aircraft, satellite, and
computer tools available. These assessments will~provide the information basis for
establishing meaningful international emission standards.
On the other hand we are developing the technology for controlling emissions.
This requires major advances in fuel and air mixture control and breakthough
composite materials made of high-temperature ceramics for the combustor liner.
We know we can achieve these ultra-low-emission goals in our labs, the challenge
is to simplify the designs in order to-also provide enhanced operability, reliability,
and affordability for the real thing.
The need for quieter aircraft brings me to our fourth goal, to reduce the per-
- ceived noise levels of future aircraft by a factor of two from today's subsonic
aircraft within 10 years, and by a factor of four within 20.
Imagine you are on the way to the airport. You're running late and as the shuttle
S bus drops you off, something catches your eye overhead. You look to see what it
was. It's a jet. Nothing surprising about that. You are at an airport. The thing that is
surprising, is that you didn't hear it. Even watching it overhead, the only noise you
can hear is the rumble of the shuttle bus as it drives away.
With aircraft that quiet around airports, airlines can fly more, increasing the
number of passengers they take every day. National Airport, which closes from 10
p.m. to 7 a.m. might stay open round the clock. There would be less congestion.
There would be more business for the aviation industry. The benefits would trickle
down to the business travelers and vacationers.
It is a great goal to work toward. NASA has conducted noise reduction research
which is now being engineered into new aircraft. Further research with composites,
engines, and airframes will help give us more design strategies for producing
quieter aircraft.
Now I want to reemphasize the point I made earlier -- these environmental goals
must be accomplished within our other goals for safety and affordability. It is the
combination of these three goals that will produce the most competitive aircraft for
our Nation.
•
Research Projects Conducted by FICAN Agencies
FICAN does not conduct or directly fund any research. Individual federal agencies control the direction of
their own research programs. FICAN offers opportunities for members to discuss research findings,
identify topics requiring research, and solicit the public's concerns about aviation noise. It is expected that
FICAN will lead to expanded and cooperative research efforts among individual agencies and, thus, result
in more efficient use of federal funds.
1Vlember agencies' research can be grouped in the following areas:
Noise Reduction Technologies
NASA is the lead federal agency in cooperation with FAA for research on aircraft noise
reduction technologies through its advanced subsonic technology program. The ultimate
..~.••~.• program objective is a 10 dB reduction in aircraft noise by the end of the century,
relative to 1992 technology. Specific technologies being investigated include: integrated
engine and nacelle development, fan noise reduction concepts, active noise control of
~'°"~"'""~"°' engines, jet noise reduction, advanced absorptive engine liners, active noise control in
~~ engine ducts, airframe high-lift operational procedures, and aeroacoustic design
.•t. ~~.
methodology. Air Force research in advanced noise reduction technologies is focussed
on active noise cancellation applied to flight demonstrations, engine silencers and hush
houses, and earplugs.
Rotary Wing Issues
Current federal research on rotary wing aircraft (primarily helicopters) includes the
development of improved computer modeling capabilities. An improved mathematical
model, developed by the U.S. Army and known as the Fast Field Program, uses
meteorological data on wind speed, wind direction, and temperature gradients to predict
•• ~~ - the propagation of helicopter noise over large distances. A successful test conducted at
~~" ~ '"' , ; Alamogordo, NM with participation by Danish, English, German, and Norwegian
'~' ''~ ~ ' ' '~'~ r' scientists under the auspices of the NATO Committee for Challenges to Modern Society
_ (CCMS) showed the model could be improved further by incorporating the influence of
atmospheric turbulence. The Army also is pursuing development of low-noise rotor
technology and the reduction of helicopter noise through adjustments to pilot
techniques. Vietnam-era guidelines for quiet flying by UH-1H helicopter pilots are being
tested to determine if they are still applicable, and revised guidelines are expected for
newer helicopters.
Land Use CompatibilityBackground Noise
c In response to the National Parks Overflights Act, the National Park Service's Report to
~.~.,.~,
•••» Congress includes recommendations to address safety issues, impairment of visitor
....
_ enjoyment, injurious effects of overflights on national and cultural resources, as well as
the benefits of overflights (1994). Implementing the recommendations of the Report to
~ Congress will require significant interagency cooperation and coordination.
a
Noise Model Development ~ ,,
Significant noise model development is ongoing at many Federal agencies. The FAA has
recently released the Integrated Noise Model, Version 5. t and the Helicopter Noise
Model (HNM version 2.2), and is preparing new models to assess and to optimize
aircraft routing beyond the immediate vicinity of airports (Noise Impact Routing,System,
or NIRS). The Air Force is developing models to predict noise from Military Training
Routes, Military Operating Areas, and sonic booms, and is improving their air base
noise model, NOISEMAP. NASA is updating its advanced technology Aircraft Noise
Prediction Program (ANOPP) and is developing a community noise impact model.
NASA and the FAA are validating the predictive capabilities of existing noise models
where noise exposure is low.
Community Reactions to Aircraft Noise
U.S. Army research on community annoyance is focussed on annoyance from intrusive
and intermittent sounds such as blasts and sonic booms. The Air Force is studying
annoyance from aircraft overflights and Military Training Routes, as well as impulsive
noise from helicopters. The Air Force and NASA, with assistance from the Army and
FAA, are conducting a study of noise-induced sleep disturbance. The Department of
Defense.continues to investigate the effects of aircraft noise exposure on people and
structures.
Noise Effects on Animals
The Air Force is examining the effects of overflights and aircraft noise on domestic,
grazing, and wild animals, as well as on birds of prey and predator-prey relationships.
The Air Force also is developing a noise monitor to track noise exposure of wild and
domestic animals. The Army and Air Force are conducting studies of the effect of
intermittent noise on nesting and roosting eagles, and the effects of Military Training
Routes on desert big horn sheep. Much. of this work is conducted with the assistance of
the Department of Interior.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. io
Agenda February 2, 1998
Issue Statement:
Proposal to upgrade four police corporal positions to sergeant positions within the
Police Division of the Public Safety Department.
Background:
The current Police Division's structure provides four teams of police officers, each
supervised by a promoted sergeant. Sergeants have overall responsibility for the
performance of their teams collectively and for each officer individually. Additionally,
each sergeant has administrative duties including:.
• firearms range/program;
• property room; and
• field training officer.
The sergeant is also responsible for handling after hours counter traffic and responding
to questions and phone calls from residents as well as performing other administrative
duties. These duties take the sergeant off the road for considerable portions of time
each shift. Additionally, because of scheduled days off, vacations, holidays, training,
and court time, there are frequent times when no sergeants are present during some
shifts. Recognizing this, the Police Division has established a system to appoint
corporals at the beginning of each scheduled bid period. These corporals are selected
from the ranks of the police officers for each team. When the sergeant is available for
duty, the police officer has no supervisory authority or responsibility. However, if the
sergeant is unavailable, the police officer becomes a corporal and has the responsibility
and authority to supervise the team.
The Police Division is now requesting authority to upgrade the four corporal positions to
sergeant positions to accomplish the following:
• The police union contract provides that shifts are bid on the basis of seniority. This
frequently leads to situations where some shifts have less experienced officers.
Since sergeants do not bid shifts, appointing additional sergeants would provide the
flexibility to assure that more experienced sergeants would be available for
supervision of teams of less experienced officers.
• The addition of four sergeants would not increase overall staffing levels or reduce
the number of officers on the street at any time. During times when two sergeants
are on duty, one of the sergeants would continue to provide the services of a police
officer.
• Development of additional sergeants would permit more formal supervisory training.
• Appointment of sergeants would provide for a clearer definition of supervisory roles
and responsibilities.
• Currently, the average level of experience of the evening shift officers is about
2.1/2 years. Within six months, it is expected that turnover will bring the experience
level to two years.
• Corporals currently receive a pay differential for this position. If approved, the
sergeants would receive a higher promotional pay increase. The first year's cost of
implementing this change would be less than $5,000. The incremental cost would
cap out at about $27,400 in four years based on today's salaries. This compares to
a total Police Division budget of $3,144,840.
Recommended Motion:
No formal action is requested. This matter is presented for discussion purposes to
determine if it should be placed on a future agenda for Council action or to discuss
other options to be explored by staff.
Basis. of Recommendation:
Providing more experienced supervision of newer police officers may help promote
improvement in public safety service and provide better support, mentorship and
training of newer officers.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may direct staff to undertake a review of other options.
2. The Council may direct staff to continue with current staffing levels and provide
feedback on issues in the future.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for discussion at the Study Session of February 2, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
r~1
~J
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 9
Agenda February 2, 1998
Issue Statement:
Discussion of proposed widening of 66th Street as part of the new I-35W bridge over
66th Street and public review process.
Background:
The Council approved the layout for the extension of the I-35W High Occupancy
Vehicle lane on March 24, 1997. However, the details of improvements needed at the
66th Street interchange were not addressed at that time. The I-35W plan calls for the
reconstruction of the I-35W bridge over 66th Street. Council first discussed the 66th
Street design issues at its Study Session on October 6, 1997. A map is attached
showing the proposed layout.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) staff will be asking for Council
approval for the proposed design of the 66th Street interchange. The project to extend
High Occupancy Vehicles on I-35W will cost an estimated $75 million. An Aesthetic
Design Review Committee, including representatives of Richfield, is responsible for the
appearance of the project.
The project review by Council involves the following:
• design issues;
• right of way acquisition;
• construction staging;
• aesthetics;
• citizen involvement process; and,
• project schedule.
Design Issues
Alignment -Sixty-sixth Street must be shifted to the south to accommodate for the
street to be widened. The southbound exit ramp is too short and too steep to shift 66th
Street to the north. Also, a shift to the north would require changes in the design of the
62 Crosstown Highway that exceed the boundaries of the approved project layout.
Elevation -Sixty-sixth Street must be lowered about 2.8 feet for several reasons. The
profile of the freeway needs to be changed to correct a substandard vertical curve to
provide safe stopping sight distances. I-35W will be raised 1.3 feet, as high as possible
without requiring additional right of way. A thicker beam is needed to support the
proposed two-span bridge over 66th Street, currently it's athree-span bridge. The
clearance for trucks passing under the I-35W bridge is only 15.3' now, and should be
16.3' as proposed.
• Left-tum lanes -The proposed layout provides for a protected left turn lane for motorists
desiring to enter the freeway. Currently, only a short left-turn lane is provided in each
direction that causes left turning vehicles to block one of the through lanes on 66th
Street. A proposed 300' long left turn storage lane will reduce the chance of left turning
vehicles from blocking through lanes during rush hour periods.
A transit stop, bikeways and sidewalks are included in the proposed design of 66th
Street in the vicinity of I-35W to correct existing deficiencies. The bus pullouts will be
placed underneath the I-35W bridge on 66th Street and provide a connection to
express bus service using I-35W. Bicyclists will ride on widened shoulders and
sidewalks will be widened to improve safety for pedestrians.
Right of Way
The layout as proposed would require the total acquisition of three parcels: 1314-1316
66th Street (duplex); 1315-1317 66th Street (duplex); and, 6600 Emerson Avenue
(single-family home being used as a group home). Four partial acquisitions are likely
as part of the proposed layout. They are: 1415 West 66th Street (single-family home);
6600-04 Girard Avenue (duplex); 6601 Emerson Avenue (single-family home); and,
1107-09 West 66th Street (duplex).
Council Members are encouraged to visit the area before the Study Session to evaluate
. the impacts of widening the road on the above properties.
Construction Staging
The proposed layout will realign 66th Street to the south and a bridge pier will be built in
what is now the eastbound left turn lane. It now appears that this pier will reduce the
number of lanes on 66th Street to one through lane in each direction. MnDOT staff will
explore removing a sidewalk (just during construction) from the south side of the street
to maintain a left turn lane in the eastbound direction. The 66th Street ramps to and
from I-35W will be closed for some during construction. Also, new underground utilities
will have to be installed under 66th Street that will cause serious disruption to traffic.
Construction will last for approximately 18 months. Details of the staging have not been
finalized.
Aesthetics
A preliminary proposal for design of the 66th Street bridge will be presented to the
Council at the Study Session. If aesthetic features exceed seven percent of a bridge's
cost, the City will be expected to contribute funds to the project's cost.
Citizen Involvement Process
City staff has invited the property owners directly affected by the proposed layout to the
February 2 Council Study Session. In addition, a letter will be sent to all residents and
property owners in the area shown on the attached map inviting them to a public
information meeting to gather public comments on the proposal. In addition, the Sun
Current newspaper would be sent a press release regarding the meeting. The Council
should direct staff regarding changes in this process.
Project Schedule
The following schedule is proposed for Council consideration:
Action Date
• Council Study Session (invitation issued for Directly
Affected Property Owners to attend) February 2, 1998
• Public Information Meeting Late February, 1998
• Council Decision on Proposed Layout March, 1998
• Right of Way Acquisition Fall, 1998
• Construction Spring, 1999 to Fall, 2000
Recommended Motion:
There is no motion. This is for discussion purposes only.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Details of improvements needed at the 66th Street interchange were not addressed
at the time of the I-35W layout approval.
• 2. The proposed layout addresses the issues raised by Council in its March 24, 1997
approval of the layout for the project to extend the High Occupancy Vehicle Lane on
I-35W.
3. City staff has proposed a process to give the community. the opportunity to express
their views on proposed improvements along 66th Street.
Alternative Recommendations:
1. Rebuild the I-35W bridge without changing the existing design. This avoids the
acquisition of any right of way and the disruption during construction caused by
realigning the road. However, the existing design of 66th Street is deficient in
providing adequate storage for left turning vehicles and this causes through traffic to
use only one lane during peak traffic periods. The existing design does not provide
for safe movement of pedestrians, bicyclists and for transit riders. Consequently,
City staff does not recommend rebuilding the interchange using the current design.
2. The home at 1314-1316 West 66th Street is proposed for total acquisition to
relocate the alley east of Girard Avenue that currently fronts onto 66th Street. The
alley poses a safety issue because it is adjacent to the southbound exit ramp of I-
35W. Council may choose to leave the alley in place. The result would be a partial
acquisition of the property along 66th Street but the home would remain.
•
3. The layout shows retaining an alley for the 6600 block of Emerson Avenue.
However, all the houses on the west side of Emerson Avenue have driveway access
to the avenue. Only one homeowner stores a vehicle behind his home. Council
may choose to abandon the alley.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This is for discussion purposes only. Based on the October 6 discussion, Council may
soon be asked to make a decision about a study related to the proposed new I-35W
bridge over 66th Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame .Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
Attachments
•
•
r
•
A
~. ~Y
~.
.~
~~_ r
~~
~~:
j~`.
$11_ '
66tfi Street 8t 35W
R op~ed T~ilirg ~u ea
t
-~
.~~
f
City of Richfield
in the vicinity of 35VV
N
Parpin.shp
T'~ilir~g Area
S
E