7-1-96 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, JULY 1, 1996
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER
735 LAKE SHORE DRIVE
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
I. 7:00 -7:30 P.M. MEETING WITH RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 26
II. 7:30 -8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF EXTENSION OF 1 -35W HIGH
OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE FROM 1 -494 TO 46TH
STREET
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 27
III. 8:00 -8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF 1995 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL
FINANCIAL REPORT
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 28
IV. 8:30 -8:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF TRAFFIC CALMING ON 70TH
STREET BETWEEN PENN AVENUE AND XERXES
AVENUE
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 29
V. 8:45 -9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF ANTENNA LEASE FOR LOGAN
WATER TOWER
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 30
VI. 9:00 -9:30 P.M. STATUS OF CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITY
• STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 31
VII. 9:30 -10:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED
ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 32
10:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
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.
•
0
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 32
Agenda July 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following:
• Runway 4 -22
Dr. Sanford Fidell of BBN Systems and Technologies met with staff to present
methodology, sampling, and preliminary results of the community survey commissioned
by the 4 -22 mediation team. There were a total of nineteen sampling cells in the
communities of Bloomington, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights,
Minneapolis, Richfield, St. Paul and Sunfish Lake. BBN attempted to interview 200
persons in each of the cells. A total of 2,880 interviews were completed, a 72%
completion rate. According to Dr. Fidell, the response rate constitutes a very credible
sampling.
Discussion with Dr. Fidell regarding the preliminary results, potential implications, and
• experiences at other airports has raised more questions that need to be considered as
4 -22 mediation efforts continue. This information will also be useful in review of
expansion discussions.
The survey results do not convey whether noise redistribution, on the order of a 3 dB
reduction, would actually be a benefit that would be perceived in either the short- or
long -term. According to Dr. Fidell, study of a similar situation around Seattle- Tacoma
International Airport (SEATAC) would suggest that such a noise reduction is not the
panacea advertised. Gradual decline in noise around SEATAC, due mostly to
integration of Stage III, produced a 3.5 dB reduction. A regional planning agency in the
Seattle- Tacoma area conducted a community survey asking residents if they had
experienced a reduction in noise, with the results being nine to one saying they had not.
Based on this information, Richfield still has a salient argument against noise
redistribution. The City's basic questions have yet to be answered:
• Will a 3 dB reduction be a perceptible benefit? Experiences at SEATAC indicate it
will not.
• Will the benefit even be generated? This is a foundational question that MAC has
yet to prove to the City's satisfaction, what the noise reduction will be.
• When will the benefit, if achieved, be eroded by increased operations? Again, this is
a significant question that gets to the heart of two issues: (1) If the community
survey shows a preference for offering time periods free of aircraft (as it appears to
• do), will advertising a noise shift set MAC and the communities up for failure when
increased operations preclude the airport from providing that noise relief; and (2) If
the benefit of a noise shift is perceived, however marginally, is it not going to inflict
greater suffering when operational levels return to or exceed previous levels?
Another position maintained by the City is that the noise shift is not equitable in terms of
annoyance. It is likely that the new noise impact experienced in southeast Richfield
and Bloomington would far exceed the benefit experienced by north Richfield and south
Minneapolis. Dr. Fidell will attempt to quantify this new impact by analyzing the differing
perceptions of residents in the 65 DNL versus the 60 DNL.
• MSP Mitigation Committee /MSP Expansion
Dr. Fidell presented the preliminary findings of the survey at the June 26 committee
meeting. Because of time limitations, Dr. Fidell's summary was brief and the committee
had no questions following the presentation. Mayor Sayles Belton requested that the
colored bar charts provided by Dr. Fidell be copied for the committee. The committee is
most likely going to wait until the final survey report is received in late July before
discussing its implications.
It appears that the biggest divergence on the mitigation committee will be over the issue
of equitable distribution of traffic. The cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, Inver Grove
Heights and Mendota Heights are all proponents of redistribution. Although not
necessarily opposing equitable distribution, acknowledging a responsibility to accept
some of the burden, Bloomington and Richfield believe there are other possibilities that
should be considered. The practical impact of redistribution is creating a much larger
area that requires additional mitigation efforts from an already limited pool of resources.
The City believes that efforts should focus on the area that has and will to continue to
experience noise impacts.
Richfield has had legislative success with components of the Community Protection
Concepts package, and yet there has been little discussion on its recommendations.
Most of the cities are focusing on operational changes, whereas Richfield is promoting
community stabilization and revitalization efforts. Discussing operational changes is
essentially a dead -end discussion because of the limitations placed on the Runway Use
System by the level of traffic.
City staff is still investigating the potential impacts of the north -south runway. Ground
level noise is factored into the Integrated Noise Model (INM), however, the INM is
rapidly becoming an outdated modeling tool that produces questionable data. The City
has been searching for an alternative analysis of ground level impacts. Dr. Fidell's firm
has developed a ground level noise monitor called the Acoustic Detection Range
Prediction Model (ADRP). This monitor provides low frequency contours down to 10
hertz. Staff believes it would be a reasonable request for MAC to utilize this technology
to evaluate ground level impacts. The draft federal environmental impact statement for
the north -south runway is expected to be released around the end of this year. Staff
• will evaluate whether to request ADRP analysis before the EIS is released, or after the
projected impacts have been studied.
•
• Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC)
A decision regarding the proposed change in Noise Abatement Departure Profiles
(NADP) was table until the July 23 meeting. Richfield questioned the accuracy of the
population counts for persons in the 60 DNL in north Richfield. The 60 DNL increases
when a Close -in NADP is used, versus the current Distant NADP. However, population
counts for the increased 60 DNL showed a 500 person decline in north Richfield. MAC
staff intimated that the NADP analysis done by HNTB is flawed because of a poorly
constructed census track database. Calling into question the accuracy of information
for Richfield caused Eagan and Mendota Heights to similarly question the integrity of
the analysis.
Richfield also requested, in addition, to corrected population data, that the Schultz
Curve be applied to the analysis to determine the change in persons highly annoyed by
noise. The Close -in NADP will marginally decrease the 65 DNL in north Richfield.
However, the annoyance of persons is a greater indicator of perceived noise relief than
is a minor change in noise contours and its accompanying population shift. It is
possible that, after reviewing the Schultz Curve application, the trade -off of a larger
overall noise footprint (out to 60 DNL) for reduced annoyance levels in the heavily
• impacted areas (65 and 70 DNL) would be acceptable. The City Council may then wish
to revisit its current position of opposing the NADP change.
• New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
The sixth auction of acquired homes was held on Thursday, June 27, at the Richfield
American Legion. A total of 121 homes had been sold through the first five auctions.
Condemnation proceedings are underway for several homes in New Ford Town. One
such case on the 6300 block of Standish Avenue has been slowed by the homeowner's
refusal to allow an environmental inspection. The homeowner has an excessive
number of vehicles stored on the property and there is concern that petroleum pollution
may be present. The judge presiding over the condemnation ordered that the owner
allow the inspection. The owner is also concerned that the City of Richfield will move to
impound a number of his unlicensed vehicles when they are moved from the yard, for a
period of several hours, to accommodate the inspectors. The owner wanted assurance
that the City would not take such action. The judge refused the request since the City
is not a party to the condemnation proceedings. It is unlikely that the City would take
action in the time the vehicles are off the property. This matter, however, has not gone
unnoticed by Public Safety officials, who currently have legal action pending against the
owner.
• Airport Impact Zone Brochure Update
• The City Council's request for a targeted brochure to Realtors, explaining airport
legislation that created a tax credit zone for new home buyers, is still in process.
Community Development staff has completed most of the brochure. (attached), but is
still awaiting the impact zone map. Metropolitan Council staff is coordinating with MAC
consultant HNTB to produce the 65 DNL + 1 -mile graphic. HNTB has been unable to
accurately plot the map. Met Council and City staff have discussed using a map plotted
by Met Council GIS technicians. Although this would expedite the process, it could
create problems if more than one version of an official map is being circulated to the
public. MAC staff have informed City staff that HNTB is being encouraged to resolve
the problem immediately. Met Council will forward the official map to the City as soon
as it becomes available.
Resident Contact Report
Attached is the June contact report regarding resident phone calls and drop -in requests
for airport information.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport policy issues.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff on airport policy.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another date.
•
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of July 1, 1996.
Respectf Ily submitted,
Jam . Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
Attachments
•
• Detail of Attachments
1 -1 Runway 4 -22 construction update
1 -2 Runway 4 -22 community survey
2 -1 MSP Mitigation Committee informational materials
2 -2 MSP Mitigation Committee: City of Eagan presentation
2 -3 MSP Mitigation Committee: City of Minneapolis presentation
3 -1 HRA brochure to realtors regarding airport legislation
4 -1 Resident contact report
•
I�
U
Attachment 1 -1
Runway 4.22 Construction Update
Construction continues to make good progress on the runway 4 -22 extension project. All six
lanes of the main runway extension (150'x 1750') have been paved. The contractor is now
concentrating on paving the taxiway extensions which connect to the runway work. The
contractor is also busy shaping the turf areas between the pavement sections. The FAA has
been on -site pulling cables and working on the installation of the precision approach guidance
system elements including the glide slope and localizer antennas and the approach lighting
system. This also appears to be progressing well. The schedule still looks good for
completion of all phases of the construction by mid- september.
Dated: June 28. 1995
;i0gw/422const.jun
•
•
y�
TOTAL F.01
Attachment 1 -2 -1
Minneapolis -St Paul Survey
1) About how long have you lived at (street address)?
2) What do you like best about living conditions in your neighborhood?
3) What do you like least about living conditions in your neighborhood?
4) Would you say that your neighborhood is quiet or noisy?
4A) Would you say that your neighborhood is slightly noisy, moderately noisy, very noisy, or extremely r16sy?
5) What is the major source of noise in your neighborhood?
6) While you've been at home during the past week, have you been bothered or annoyed by street traffic noise in your
. neighborhood?
6A) Would you say that you were slightly annoyed, moderately annoyed, very annoyed, or extremely annoyed by
street traffic noise in your neighborhood last week?
7) Have you noticed any more or any less aircraft noise than usual in your neighborhood over the past week, just since last
(day of week)?
7A) Have you noticed slightly, moderately, or considerably more aircraft noise in your neighborhood over the past
week?
713) Have you noticed slightly, moderately, or considerably less aircraft noise in your neighborhood over the past
week?
0 8) Roughly, how many airplanes per day did you notice while you were at home last week?
9) While you've been at home over the past week, just since last (day of week), have you been bothered or annoyed by
aircraft noise in your neighborhood?
9A) Have you been slightly annoyed, moderately annoyed, very annoyed, or extremely annoyed over the past week
by aircraft noise in your neighborhood?
10) While you've been at home over the past year, just since last May, have you been bothered or annoyed by aircraft noise
in your neighborhood?
l0A) 'Have you been slightly annoyed, moderately annoyed, very annoyed, or extremely annoyed over the past year by
aircraft noise in your neighborhood?
11) Generally speaking, are you more annoyed by noise made by airplanes landing or by airplanes taking off?
12) In general, is there a time of day when you most object to hearing aircraft noise?
13) Do you think that your annoyance with aircraft noise would be reduced if acoustic insulation were installed in your
home?
14) Would your annoyance with aircraft noise be reduced if you received a reduction in property taxes for your home?
15) Would your annoyance with aircraft noise be reduced if there were time periods during the day free of aircraft noise?
15A) Would one hour free of aircraft noise during the day reduce your annoyance?
1513) Would two hours free of aircraft noise during the day reduce your annoyance?
Attachment 1 -2 -2
15C) Would four to six hours free of aircraft noise during the day reduce your annoyance?
15D) About how many hours free of aircraft noise during the day would be needed to reduce your annoyance?
16) Would your annoyance with aircraft noise be reduced if you occasionally received free airline tickets?
17) Would your annoyance with aircraft noise be reduced if you heard 10% fewer airplanes per day?
17A) Would your annoyance with aircraft noise be reduced if you heard 25% fewer airplanes per day?
•R
17B) Would your annoyance with aircraft noise be reduced if you heard 50% fewer airplanes per day?
18) Would your annoyance with aircraft noise be reduced if airlines paid for improvements in your neighborhood, such as
additional recreational or park facilities?
19) Would you be interested in selling your house through a government program that might eventually put the property to
other uses?
20) Would you be interested in taking part in a home purchase assistance or sale guarantee program administered by
Minneapolis/St. Paul airport?
21) Do you have any suggestions for measures other than those we've discussed that might lessen the effects of aircraft noise
in your neighborhood?
22) Have you complained within the last year to the airport or any government official about aircraft noise in your
neighborhood?
•
•
� 0
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
St. Paul
Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights
Inver Grove Heights
Eagan
Eagan
Bloomington
Bloomington
Richfield SE
Richfield SE
Richfield N
Richfield N
Richfield N
Minneapolis E
Minneapolis E
Minneapolis E
Minneapolis E
Minneapolis W
Minneapolis W
60 dB 65 dB
60 dB s Ldn-s 65 dB
65 dB s Ldn s 70 dB
60 dB s Ldn s 65 dB
60 dB s Ldn <_ 65 dB
65 dB s Lm :!g 70 dB
60 dB < Ldn <_ 65 dB
65 dB s Ldn s 70 dB
60 dB <_ La„ s 65 dB
65 dB s Ldn s 70 dB
60 dB s Ldn s 65 dB
65 dB <_ Ldn s 70 dB
70 dB s Ldp, s 75 dB
60 dB s Ldn -e. 65 dB
65 dB s Ldn :g 70 dB
70 dB < Ldn <_ 75 dB
75 dB <- Ldn <_ 80 dB
60 dB s Ldn :5 65 dB
65dBsLd„s70dB
Attachment 1 -2 -3
200
202
84
101
171
73
200
48
203
91
200
203
90
202
200
201
135
203
73
0
01.
i7
0
-01,
9
0
A
N
m
U
a
cd
.� .r
tA8
V
C:
N
chmelat
G
i
o
C
�G
o
J
Vw
h
�J
J /{
cv
rte•
0
O
c
c • ;:L• p �
CD
CD
CD
uu
r]
1
• o
0
tr
d
z
lot
v �
a
I�
0
0
4 -,I
0
w
A
o
t!1
O
•� o
o
• ON
o �
0
0
.s
PaA
r�
ct
cn
i�
V
0
� o
C)
CC3 O �'.•
N �
4
I
t
CJ]
O
W
a� �
a�
VJ�
t.r.d
V
U
0
�N.
-- -8
:hment 1 2
Q qq D
CIN
� O �
O %,.0 %.
G�• O V
G
d
Ct�
O�
pG
0
n
O•
�z
n
1 �
t
`I
hu.��
n
�
CD
Ct�
O�
pG
0
n
O•
�z
n
1 �
t
`I
hu.��
as:
0
n
d
O
� o
� o
o
Aa
r
o
H %, -
C-4
a
Nw.�/
C%;
Q
00
Cd
�
a
�
C-4
a
Nw.�/
C%;
Q
00
Cd
�
15
Cy
' o 00 U
LTEI
I
o a �
d
� cv
G � �
� o c
IPA
o �
�.
z
0
d
I�
z
a
�
� o WON
0
Q
H � �
N 0
� N
Q �
U�
0
nY
Q�
ah
o
o h
c-, a
•• o a
co
O
'o
0
0
0
'a
n
0
co
chmexlt
1 -2-x-2
1-4 CD k,..A U
CD • D o . CD
CD
¢ CD � C)
C1G�, CD �' N G? CD
CD CD
CD
CD CD.
CD
CD CD
CD 0 CD
gip• �� ���
J
rC�•!
z
1
a
•
C`.
•
n-
4 . CD � • � co co �
�� o`c °•o � �o
o �• c o o a
n� "� o
Q-►
RDA tz
,E
z.
1
z
0
o�
w�
W
1
4�
c�
Co
O ,� , its v
cd
hment 1 -2'16
w
n O �
N
ro
�G
tilt
o �
O
O, Ri
CD �...,,
�-C
CD Vet
d
ems!
�• cb
CSC
n
N �
O �
co
CID t„n
n
CD �
P � � o
0 � � O O
rP
;� rh
i
b
loop �z
tit
n
�n
O
•
n
C•
Lott
Ic
C�3 Q '�"'���► t13 cd
rtachm�nt -2-1
0 0 CD
CD ri
(D
n � �
,r • �n
1Z
C
CD
n � n
�' CD
n �•`C
O
yj
Q
Q `rC
CD
o � �
o °•
b
�z
c�
0
a�
0
z
•
w
W
W
U
a
x
y
i�
as �
44 cd
co
� o o
Attachment 1 -2 -21
•
i
•
I
W
a
d
L�
z
w
y
a
w
h
z
a
a
C-E
LO
Attachment 1 -2 -22
Z;
I
a
z
c
0
y
x
c�
x
y
z �
y
z
c
z
c�
x
• CA
_J
r
F
x
c�
w
x�
�a
a�
w3
�a
cF
x
w
z
Attachment 1 -2 -23
ca
9
Attachment 1 -2 -24
N
a
c�
z
z
y
z
z
c�
•
•
Cl
z
w
5
x
w
F
z
z
0
F
c�
z
0
0
a
w
Attachment 1 -2 -25
a
N
N
Attachment 1 -2 -26
N
w
c
y
x
C�J
H
7�
n
r
d
z
H
C
•
C
•
•
l
W
W
E�
z
A
a
w
w
x
v
�a
x
H
z
0
z
Attachment 1 -2 -27
�a
A
N
Attachment 1 -2 -28
a
a
G
•
y
z
z
b
0
r
z •
y
z
r�
�Z
•
•
z
w
x
w
H
z
a
0
a
w
z
z
H
w
ZA
Attachment 1 -2 -29
ca
N
achtieT, 1 -2 3
J
i
S
C
a
v•
CD
O
0
0
c
C1�
z
z
G�
a
r
m
•
•
0
J
hr�ll
V
h+l
A
0
z
0
H
A
TWS
V1
W
A
0
a
C4
Attachment 1 -2 -31
0 Co w dam' N
T sluepuodsaa 10 luaoaad
m
0
E
0
0
W T
Z
Z
0
T-
v
0
W/�
/ LO
v/
2
U
LO
v
Q N
w ■
W
N
v
Z °
W '-
L
T
v
■
4ttachment 1-2 -32
f
I
i
i
i
N
b
ME
Fi
C7
0 -4
C°
rn
0
CD
z-4
8
Percent of Respondents
to 0
CD
°
MI
r�
K�
n
b
°
°
Im
00
00
a
a
Oil
n
i \)
R
r
b
A
0
0
o�
N
�rTl
V
L/1
A
a
t
o woolod
{ s��apuodsald
0
�c
a�
w ='
C�
too
h.�ent 1- 2 3 4
0
O
E�
O
O
d
O
cn
p
•
40
•
f
W
H
O
Q
O
O
O
V
H
W
z
w
0
W
NW�
O
O
h
��
O CCD CD � N
r
sluepuodsaa 10 Iuaoaad
Attachment 1 -2 -35
z
z
w
z
z_
z
2
U
cc
W
cn
2
U
O
O
M
z
CD
Q
CL
V/
0
z
cW
C
S t �s
���
L
0
0
All
■
V—
^O
i
2
15
L
2
0
N
In
:hm� =nt 1-2-36
w
,i
T
b
percent of Respondents
co
� o �
N O
O .
CSC
Ln
pi+
Z
O,
CND
O
X
"L3
O
CD
r -4
Ln
6
r•
n
fi
Ii
N
d
.ri
N
O
9
... 4• •
N rj
ul
O
O
V
r]
L
•
W
a�
wW
�Q
�o
p�
Ww
to-o
jwA�
W�
U�
�p
W
r�-
c:
o luaoaad
sJuaP
uodsala
Z
■
n
A
Attachment 1 -2 -38
9
Percent of Respondents
OD
Q
O O O O O 0
Ch
T
moo z
r
0
Cl) 0
= _
CO
`D m
D
D
z
?1
O O Ci
Co m CO
f
n
o =
0
z
Q. �
z
z
M
z
z
EM
I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. 1 -------- --- --- ---- --- -- --- -• --1
.1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A- - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7
-I- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
y
�o
�y
41
�M
M�
yZ
M�
^ H
y
O
C�
40
•
0
Q
�a
A
AWE
w�a
ww
W
O
•
0
r
V-
N
r
to
N
4
m
M �
N
tin co
•- U
Q
O
sr
�z
N
d
CO
slus'Puodss'l }o luaoaad
v
0
?attachment 1 -2--"
cot
n
0
Average Number of Aircraft Noticed
C�
d�
tz
tit
t�
b�
�O
On
CO
�n
�d
�b
p�
•
•
/--- at
Wa
A
W
� ZW
WH
U�
O�
as
wW
�A
�A
q
Z
Z_
L
W
Z_
Z
U
cd
W
2
U
O
CD
Q
a
W
o
Ln
U
tts � ,- r
� M a a6leaand
paolloN .418JOIN }o aagwnN
Z
CL
;hm�nt 1 "2'42
�r
i
percent °f pand
ents
P .,t o 0
N � O O
o °
O o
O
0 so
�L
O �
CND O
'L3
N
CD
z
E- Cn
I•
.a •
O
ii
C�
O�
tT
•
b
�a
�o
Gt�,a
Z�
p �
�d
b ZC
O�
•
WA
�Zd
� W
a ton
OW
W
a
r
--
X.
s
9
O N
O O
o co uaoaaa
�- sluapuodsaa to
WS
I
U')
Z
0
r,
Q
W
� cn
a N
tt ►►
ca
u
y
o
std
s
O N
O O
o co uaoaaa
�- sluapuodsaa to
WS
I
4 4
ndents H.V Annoyed
f Resp°
percent
o
� o
0
0
0
NCD
SDI
v.
0
Ct1• ""1
�p O
X
O
G
CD
0
oo•
0
too \00 16
•
0
i
0
va
►�
ON
•
G�
ro
Z
�d
� x�d
O
I
i
1
U
O
a Z
Z.
w�
H�
Z' H
Z, U
A�
�
W
U �
�W
H
O
d
v
m
0
c
4
z
t
M
HV Va.`
9
0
pal�ouuy �1�1�!H �uao�ad
r
Z
Q
i
0ry
X
O 1
r
C)
Z
ca
ini
Q
iC
4
tachment -2-46
t
W
0
n
-a
O
N
(D
X
u
c
i
1
s
Respondents H+ghly Rnnoyed
percent of co o
M o
n
C�J
�O
nz
�d
oz
o�
z�
z
0
d
•
•
•
y r
woo
�z�
�is*�
w �
4et�
a
A�
wE
ar
w �
w�
At t a C L 1LLLG -
ICJ
o 0 %--
co
a
}sad p aAouuy "'gB'H
a�a�
CL.
-u
4
C
h Q
rA
N
0
4
Attachment 1 -2 -48
■
am
Z
t
D
z
o�
Cn
M
■
0
> z
�fT
0
cc
a
Percent of Respondents
0
n� ? o 0 0
O
rz
�o
�c
o �c
�z
�o
c� y
o�
r
z
•
•
t
1
H
O f
w
O
H
A
t7
a
w
O
z
L-3,-
L
co
rn
2
V1
rn
coo
n�
PU
m
0 � w
Z
U
O Lo
fl.
N
U) U?
Q
c
rn
m
Ul) U.
� O
0 U-)
O O 1pt7 N r r
N
"
"' hlVeQ 10 aaqumN
suolleaad0
G
14
tachment 1._2_50.
t
3
O
C-
tf2
N
CD
0
(n
Number of DailY Operations
N p �
N O O
O �
K
G
N
CD
0
ol
z
G
v
CD
0) T
Z
O
ot
r
a
x
0
z
x
P= i
cn
O
H�
OW
a
1 0
0
a
V
6
a
Y
1
O
z
O
N
(A
4
T
o
{
N u�'t 10 o►}8b
s4aaxel of s6u,p
tT#
`L
Q
v
z
LL
0
Attachment 1 -2 -52
t
b
MM
OZ
fQ
m
U
Z
v
i
No,,
D
D
Z
a v
3
U) m
00
o
$-
Q
o
n
C=
m
2
CD
0
z
M
z
Z
Z
m
cQ
M
Percent of Respondents
O O O O O O
-F - ` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a
.1.. - .. - - - - - - . . •. - - - - - - - -- - - - - - J
y
VL
y�
O�
ll
H
O�
r
F�1
0
0
9
•
I
O
a�
zaoa
z
Z.
Ono
o�z
H
�Ew
zU�
a
W�H
WO
U�✓
W
a
AttacEjILL .LL4
s}uapuodsaa }o juaoaed
ca
T
c
LO 'Y
T
r�
T
0
Y (�
r
� o
N
Y
r
r
O
r
C
co
r-
co
L N
r
M
N
r
achment 1._2 -54
7
j
r
c
N
N
G
ae
t
t
varcent of Ftesponden's 0 A
ot
b
too
b
►� Q
d
�]
H
�o
•
•
/1001's
h�
Za�
w �
TT ll
� v
W
pw�
� F
wA�
cog
Z
F
W�C
Attachment 1 -L -»
O O 00 N
O CO
r spapuodsali Jo luaoaad
a
F.
0
c
c
0
rl
11
r
�r
r
4
N
h
Attachment 1 -2 -56
Percent of Respondents
j
O 0 0 0 0 0
�w
v
_ o
a
cc
N
O C
C
N
. Cl)
.o,
0 Cn
V
00
1
M
Cl
�uT
y y
� O
�O
Oil
��0-b
O
I `
uu
v
H
r
d
•
0
0
•
•
V
ZU
�A
Wa
� a
IoW
Z�U
W Z
Z �
O O
Uz
�Z
O►zW
H �
W�
UW
W
aw
Attachment 1 -2 -57
Q O
Co (D Nt C
T
sivapuodsaa 10 luaoaad
n
0
D
n
O
�Y
r�
r
r
r
}
LO
M
Cpl
T
N
Attachment 1 -2 -58
U
■
C]
0-
a
--w
CD
9
t
N
a
CD
CD
t
0
CD
CD
N
W
a
C
v
c
Percent of Respondents j
C 0
CD . 0 0 0
l i
y
pro
V
n� o z
�dZ
� y
J �
to
r�
�z
0
•
•
i
oa
woo
�zz
w w
A
OZ�
a�W
N�
�A
wW
O�
HWA
wy`o�
7 � O
W�
Attachment 1 -2 -59
O v v
0 O � 0 � N
T
sluopuodsold 10 }u9339d
,0
0
o
n
0 CO
n
N
T
h
achment 1-2-60
J
a
N
'0
m
v
i
percent of Respondents
0
0 A �
m
z
FO
0
Zs
m
i
Z
Z
m
z
G
2
j
d
Q
a
C CD
N
x
1 ¢?'
a I
CD
A CD
OR,
CD N
N
CD
o
< 3
m �
CD CD
N
N
%. "d
t-6
4Z
�C
C'1 d
�r
,1
A�
�z
•
•
h ent 1_2 62
•
b
-A
■
CD
CP
C
Cl
percent of Respondents
..1
M CO
Eis
rd
ro
�b
�z
�d
t�
O�
p�
d
Attachment 1 -2 -62
4
O ono
Ono
�a
A�
A�
O
rr�
V1
W�
T^
W�V1
r ,
a
1
Attachment 1 -2 -61
C^
00
•
•
•
s
a
o
0
° C
fi
r
O
O
Q�
it
e
•
O
O
p
sluepuodseu to lueoied
sluepuodseu /o lu—Gd
slusPuodseH 10 PJ-Jed
a
w
a
w
o
w
s
A
°
°
Q
°
r
° W
O
°
o
2
r 6
r
e
�
sluepuodseu 10 4ue0ied
sluepuodseu 10 lue0ied
sluepuodseu 10 3ueoied
O
p
p
O
C
r
O
•
Igo
O
°
O
°n
sluepuodseu 10 luaoJed
sluepuodseu 10 lueoied
sluepuodseu 10lueaed
00
•
•
•
t
6
W
U
Z Z
*0 e,
W � N
F
W
AWH
d
a
z��
et
ago
a�
H
Attachmenti L ,_ -
�— 0 N
sluepuodsaa jo }ueoled
CD
r
co
h
_O
T
LO
T
T
N
r
T
T
O
r
w
m
N
T
8
Attachment 1 -2 -64
j
N
W
v
a
f
Percent of Respondents
CO O
0 0 0 0
O �
Z�y
y�O
t� d
�QO
y ci
�yd
N �
O
O
0
•
•
C]
' Attachment 2 -1 -1
Minneapolis - St. Raul International Airport
Stage III Report
Month/Year
Stage III
Stage II
34
66R0°
January 1995
42.3%
57.7%
February 1995
41.8%
58.2%
March 1995
40.4%
59.6%
Apri11995
41.9%
58.1%
May 1995
43.1%
56.9%
June 1995
44.8%
55.2%
July 1995
45.8%
54.2%
August 1995
45.1%
54.9%
September 1995
44.9%
55.1%
October 1995
48.6%
51.4%
November 1995
49.5%
50.5%
....
'
::.::.::.::...
January 1996
48.5%
51.5%
February 1996
47.2%
52.8%
March 1996
47.4%
52.6%
Apri11996
49.0%
51.0%
Vi a; >: »> _ ,,' <. > <>
... 9 `' > ` >
? ` >: > :> >
• RUNWAY 4 -22 USAGE SUMMARY
PROJECTED 1996 RUNWAY USE - NO BUILD
RUNWAY
11L
11R
29L
29R
4
22
DAYTIME
DEPARTURE ARRIVAL
25%
30%
23%
18%
0%
4%
100%
26%
28%
25%
20%
0%
1%
100%
Attachment 2 -1 -2
NIGHTTIME
DEPARTURE ARRIVAL
25%
33%
22%
16%
0%
4%
100%
19%
23%
34%
21%
2%
1%
100%
• PROJECTED 1996 RUNWAY USE - WITH EXTENSION
RUNWAY DAYTIME
NIGHTTIME
DEPARTURE ARRIVAL DEPARTURE ARRIVAL
111-
23% 21%
24%
16%
11R
27% 23%
31%
19%
29L
17% 31%
16%
38%
29R
16% 24%
14%
24%
4
0% 0%
0%
2%
22
17% 1%
15%
1%
Source:
EIS for Extension of Runway 4 -22
•
c
O
�i
fC
O
V
v
�o
ii
c
a�
W
41
bA
C
c/1
U
Q
d
t
so
MAC MSP 1994 Runway Configuration Use
VFR (92%) IFR (8 %)
I* 11L
11R 45%
29R
29L �O
;k 11L 11L
11R 43% � 11R 4%
29R 29R
29L 29L
11L 41P 1%
11R
29R
77�� 29L
11R 4%
29R
L 1%
I1R 29L
29R
f� 29L
1�
11L 2%
11R
29R
29L
HNTB
1__.)
0
17
17
MSP 2005 Runway Configuration Use
VFR (92 %) 1 IFR (8%) ■
?4%
29%
Ik,11L 31%
17 29R
29L kP
y
11L 7%
}1R
17 29R
29L
1%
17
m
6%
2%
•
Attachment 2-2-1
CITY OF EAGAN
MSP MITIGATION PRESENTATION
June, 1996
1. State Funding for Abatement and Mitigation
- As Much a Part of the Airport Decision as its Location
2. Larger Mitigation Area - More Mitigation Tools than Part 150
- 60 DNL plus 3 -2 -1 Phase -In of Noise Abatement Programs
- MSP Airport Area Concept Package
3. Equitable Sharing of Impacts by All Benifitting Communities
- Narrower Corridor Operations
- River Bottom Departure for Runway 17 -35 Traffic
- Expansion of Nighttime Hours
• - Nighttime Operations on Runway 4 -22
4. Independent Operations Monitoring System
r�
Attachment 2 -2 -2
CITY OF EAGAN
MSP MITIGATION PRESENTATION
1 June, 1996
Thank youl for the opportunity to speak to you regarding the City of
Eagan's heeds and expectations to mitigate the expansion of
Minneapollis -St. Paul International Airport.
1. State Funding for Abatement and Mitigation is
- As; Much a Part of the Airport Decision as its T,nn -A inn -
It ii unfortunate that the Legislature chose to conclude the
airp rt siting process without addressing the total cost of
he
t' decision, namely the. dusts of mitigating its
consequences for tens of thousands of residents around the
curr,nt site. Noise abatement is not an afterthought anymore
than! ether environmental impacts are incidental to other
publlic projects.
The fate of Minnesota, as the beneficiary of the lower public
cost of expansion at the current site, must bear the costs of
truly mitigating the airport's impacts on residents affected
by more operations in current noise impact areas and new
operations where a runway or runways will be added. While the
airport needs to participate in the cost, we agree that it
shou�d not be solely a MAC responsibility.
• Ir addition, the programs that this committee recommends
should be designed so that real benefits flow directly to
nois4 impacted residents who will bear the environmental
burd�n for the businesses and traveling public throughout the
stat . Redevelopment assistance and other community based
too16 are essential, but any mitigation program must
fund6mentally address the needs of the people on the ground
who Ore affected in their homes.
3
2. It its essential that noise mitigation tools be applied to a
Larg'r Mitigation Area than has been discussed to date and
that!, a program be implemented which consists of More
Mitigation Tools than is included in the Part 150 Program.
- Thle City of Eagan wants to build on a concept included in
the recent legislation and in the MSP Airport Area concept
Pack,ge, discussed below, that aircraft noise mitigation tools
be available in an area greater than that described by typical
nois6 contours. We think that it is also .important to have
step�ed eligibility within that area to avoid the stark
differanoes in treatment between areas at the boundaries of
program eligibility.
All instigation tools should be available to residents within
one ;mile of the 60 DNL contour. Some tools should be
available with owner financial participation from one to two
mile4 of the contour and even fewer tools with greater owner
participation at two to three miles. The (30 DNL plus 3 -2 -1
Attachment 2 -2 -3
i
Phas6 -In of Noise Abatement Tools will mean that residents can
• part "cipate in the same programs as their neighbors, the
prim ry difference being the level of participation. This
will avoid the experience we have had with the Part 150,
Program in which residents on one side of a street receive all
benelfits while residents on the other receive none.
i
Tho MSP Airport Area Concept package is an important first
step:. Efforts should go further to encourage noise
Comp tible, nommarcial development in the communities most
affe ted by aircraft noise. Commercial development within
thesb cities should be exempt from fiscal disparities or the
fiscal disparities contributions they make should be returned
to them for noise- abatement, property tax abatement, economic
development and redevelopment programs.
in a�dition, on airport development for private use should be
subj ,6ct to payments in lieu of property taxes and fin-cal
disparities contributions and those should be distributed to
the i affected cities on a proportionate basis as well.
3. To the extent that it is possible, there must be an Equitable
Shading of Impacts by All Senefitting Communities. This
requires that we rethink some of our old assumptions and take
advantage of new technologies.
• - OpOirations within the Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor must be
narrowed and managed using CPS technologies. Overflying noise
compatible areas is still sound policy, but the capacity of
the corridor has been overwhelmed at current traffic levels.
It is essential that standard instrument departures be
established which require less than fifteen compass degrees of
sepaiation and that CPS be used to maintain them.
- We;also support the use of River Bottom Departures for all
Runway 17 -35 Traffic. Eagan already receives more than its
sham of air traffic from the parallel runways. It would be
ineg4itable to concentrate any more traffic over the same
community from the new runway.
We also need an Expansion of the Nighttime Hours when
airlines voluntarily do riot suhudule operations. We should
also recognize that the nighttime hours are the only time
periods within which air traffic is low enough to permit use
of the cross --wind runway, If the communities affected by the
parallel runways must endure airport noise all day, one means
of achieving more equity would be to ha%ro the crosswind
communities absorb the impacts at night and provide some
relief to the most affected airport neighbors.
4. Finajly, it is essential to have an operations Monitoring
• System Independent of the FAA. MAC staff has already begun to
identify the practical reasons for this, but more importantly,
it W�uld permit
1
i
Attachment 2 -2 -4
I
- Adtive Enforcement of Violations of standard procedures.
Since much of the effprtivPnpss of noise abatement pror1rams at
an O-xpanded MSP will depend on operations within certain
para�ieters, it is necessary for the airport to have a direct
conn6ct or parallel receiving system for operations
monitoring. The MAC must take the next step which would be
enforcement of individual violations of the standards and
punitive actions on par with the impact of the violation. If
the MAC is not in a position to enforce, it should be
undartaken by tha MPCA_
The most ''important aspect though is that the State of Minnesota
must bear many of trie costs of maintaining and expanding the
airport at its current location. To do otherwise would unfairly
burden tens of thousands of residents while subsidizing private
industry.' Quite simply, those that benefit should cover the costs
of those who are impacted.
Attachment 2 -3 -1
Presentation to the MPS Noise Mitigation Committee
Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton
June 26, 1996
The City of Minneapolis believes the Mitigation Process is vital to the future of
Minneapolis. It is an opportunity to mitigate the detrimental effects of the airport on the
community.
In neighborhood after neighborhood in South Minneapolis, surveys show that airport
noise is far and away the number -one resident concern. It even eclipses crime and
schools.
The airport is a resource for the entire state. It produces jobs and economic benefits for
thousands of Minnesota citizens. At the same time, its negative impacts are felt by a
much smaller number of Minnesotans — those metro residents who live closest to it, a
dispropoportionate number of whom are Minneapolis residents. For example, 87 percent
of all homes in the Part 150 1996 Ldn 65 contour are in Minneapolis. The number of
Minneapolis homes affected by noise is more than six times the combined number of all
the other affected homes in other communities. A higher percentage of flights using the
parallel runways over Minneapolis is responsible for the unequal distribution of noise.
The effects of noise are felt not only by individuals and families, but also by
neighborhoods. This mitigation program must address the concerns of the broader
community and neighborhoods as well as individuals.
We have developed several principles upon which we have based specific
recommendations that I would like to present to you.
I emphasize that any mitigation plan will be for naught without an absolute guarantee that
no third parallel runway will be constructed to further impact the City.
1. All communities surrounding the airport must share the burdens of having an
airport neighbor so that some communities are not overburdened.
• This means that there must be an equitable distribution of air traffic around this
airport. Nothing is more infuriating to city residents than the statistics that reflect a
disproportionate amount of air traffic over Minneapolis. We understand the
limitations of Runway 4/22 as a traffic redistribution tool, but until the North/South
runway is built, as much traffic as possible must be carried on that runway.
• We believe that our residents want, not only fewer planes overhead, but periods of
time that are noise -free.
1
Attachment 2 -3 -2
• The timing of the North/South runway is crucial in determining how long Runway
4/22 will be used for noise redistribution. However, Minneapolis residents are
suspicious'about the uses and the effeets of the North/South runway, and are
particularly concerned about ground noise. We need more data on project use of the
North/South runway. We insist that when the North/South runway is built, all
mitigation costs associated with its use should be budgeted as project costs. This
would include mitigation for the homes off the south end of the runway, as well as
berms and other appropriate mitigation techniques for the north end.
2. The mitigation plan must not only focus on money and the programs it can fund,
but also on operational measures that will decrease noise.
• The MAC must monitor and enforce the national legislation mandating the-airline-fleet
conversion from Stage 2 to Stage 3.
• Operations at MSP must reflect the Stage 2 /Stage 3 fleet mix of the airlines operating
at this airport. Currently, Stage 3 operations at MSP are below 50 percent, while the
percentage of the total NWA Stage 3 fleet is well above that. Because of Northwest's
dominance in this market, this drives down the percentage of Stage 3 operations at
MSP exposing Minneapolis residents to more noise than need be.
• We insist that the number of flights between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. be severely restricted.
Only Stage 3 planes should be used between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and
possible extension of those hours should be vigorously pursued.
• We support departure and landing procedures that will alleviate the most noise for the
most people. Careful consideration should be given to the MASAC Operations
Committee recommendation on departure profiles. Operational requirements, such as
the three -mile rule in the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor, must be examined to
ensure that they are indeed noise - reducing measures, and not simply measures that
increase the noise in other areas.
• We support the Mendota Heights proposition that ANOMS actual current data be used
whenever possible in noise programs -- as opposed tocomputer - generated data.
• We encourage the MAC to use its influence with other airports as well as aviation
organizations to promote the development of Stage 4 aircraft.
3. To accomplish our goals, we must engage in a comprehensive effort, knowing full
well that it will be expensive. This mitigation will affect not just a few, but thousands
of homes, as well as other facilities.
• We believe that the sound insulation program must be extended to the Ldn 60 contour.
We hear repeatedly that the Ldn 65 is arbitrary and far too stringent a standard for
community noise abatement.
• All work in the Ldn 65 must be completed before work begins on the Ldn 60 areas and
implementation of the program in the Ldn 60 area should occur at the same rate in
each affected community. The City is willing to work with Part 150 staff to identify
the number of buildings that would be affected by this program expansion.
2
•
Attachment 2-3 -3
All homeowners should be notified of the schedule for -the remaining years of the
program. The the strongest sentiments we heard from residents at the meetings in
south Minneapolis concerning the Part 150 program concerned their desire to know
exactly when their property would be insulated.
.We also urge that several ombudsmen be added to and funded by the program, but
work at the direction of the community. The size of the program 'would necessitate at
least three staff people in this role. Many homeowners feel ill equipped to deal with
the program, because of age, illness, lack of information regarding alternatives, or
other reasons.
In order to maintain community trust, the Part 150 program must use only quality
contractors and materials.
Residents are interested in sound abatement for multifamily dwellings, churches,
nursing homes, as well as commercial and recreational buildings. They are concerned
not just about their homes, but the broader community where they worship, work, shop
and play. We stand ready to conduct an inventory of the number of buildings this
might encompass so that cost estimates could be calculated and included in mitigation
planning.
4. Community mitigation is more than just noise insulation. There must be
comprehensive measures to strengthen neighborhoods and communities to make up for
the destabilizing effects of aircraft noise.
• • There is strong support for a program of property value guarantees. For most people,
the buying of their home is the biggest single purchase of their lives. They expect that
with reasonable upkeep, the value of their property should not be eroded by a force
they cannot control such as increased aircraft noise. Value guarantees would be a
community strengthening measure, and encourage people to staty in, and invest in,
their Minneapolis homes.
• People are also interested in some form of tax abatement. This is strongly rooted in
the fact that many people in the state benefit from the airport, but area residents pay
for others' convenience and profits with their loss of tranquillity. Tax rebates, purchase
incentives, and property value guarantees are the kind of programs the State of
Minnesota should support and fund.
• Several neighborhoods have identified enhancements such as decorative street
lighting, Junior High Athletic programs, recreational facilities (gyms, pools and
bicycle paths), and increased reforestation as neighborhood strengthening tools. These
amenities should be included in mitigation plans to strengthen neighborhoods at risk
from aircraft noise.
• Safety continues to be an issue for people living in the airport vicinity. While we
realize the probability of a crash is small, it takes only one incident to cause the demise
of an airline, or expose any shortcomings in disaster planning. Therefore, we would
like to see a full scale review of the present disaster plan, involving all the
communities neighboring the airport to ensure that all parties are comfortable with its
•
3
•
•
Attachment 2 -3 -4
completeness. I believe the MAC needs to reexamine its disaster plan; however, I
do not want to see any mitigation dollars spent on developing this plan.
• Residents also worry about the long -term effects of exposure to aircraft noise. We
understand that scientific data is inconclusive on this issue. - Therefore, we believe that
the MAC, together with the PCA, health research organizations and the neighboring
communities should seek research funds for a long term study of 'this issue. While its
results will not be available to inform this discussion, it is a critical issue and must be
addressed.
5. This cannot be a one -time fix. Aircraft noise pollution will continue and so must the
efforts to reduce it and its effects. What we are planning now are remedial efforts.
We must also put in place a proactive plan and funding mechanism to tackle problems
that have yet to surface. Most people look upon this mitigation program under discussion
as a pay -back for past inconvenience and suffering. We urge that the MAC and State of
Minnesota be proactive regarding future negative noise impacts. We urge them to create a
trust fund or annually budget a percentage of capital improvement dollars to be used for
this purpose. A trust fund could be created by increasing the current noise surcharge and
differential landing fee, by dedicating a percentage from the all landing fees to this
purpose, or by any other number of creative mechanisms.
6. Although the bulk of the mitigation costs should be carried by the MAC and the
airlines -- since these are costs of doing business -- the State of Minnesota should
also shoulder some of the responsibility for mitigation.
Any plan which truly seeks to mitigate the effects of MSP needs to have an on -going
financial commitment from the State. We recognize that the airport is a benefit for the
entire state, and therefore the entire state needs to help mitigate the negative impacts of
MSP on the surrounding communities.
We have an opportunity to develop a plan where every one of us is a winner. I believe
we need to put everything out on the table and thing about new creative solutions. I will
continue to listen carefully to each of you as you present your ideas. I am committed to
developing a package of solutions that will represent the best possible use of the money
and one that will best serve all of our communities. Thank you.
Citypos.doc
6/24/96
4
•
401-•
►lw
r�
rJ
*PEW
.M
.5
O
LIZ
b+0
w
.=2
c�
w
Attachment 3 -1
4)
S Co o E� ° a� o a�
° °0 3 -. = C C ai ° s6s
�°, >°-'� cv °� 0 C m Ems.
c0.2.2-
0 �v �v m� Q � Lv y 4� 0 E c
° ov�ECu~� ° Q- � aia : ; S p) E"o a) a) °o°E
C �
0 ) > 'p U fn O a) .O C U O 0 ID
O a a) C
a E l a) .0 M OO N C V _ `
O O o S C 0 Z.
U) ° N 0 O O 'O
U
(Q
O O 0
�E•0'XE ECa vC0 �� Va�ai�o�c_•�'C ° -'�0 -C
o� ox oE `o�`OE .°a' a) a) �`ma�3 a)0Ca)
� C CV E a) -v 4- ° 4- E ca .S 0 0 r_ ° ° a� a")
� ;n
o CL a) °o�oo °o yap Q� ocao0�oc ° ~rn
o .-. o o E a� a� M •- ° ai .
y ° 0 aN 'Lo a) �_ 0 T- V N_ '� Q 4- O p s L 0 O 0 cv O C
a•5 acv ocfl U�.�� E e��" m,� -�«- a3 = =� fl.� o E > �n
Q 2 N >,.S O■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■■ O Q•r- W 0
L
�
U
O
}�
�
U
�
J
Lo
Qi
U
�
r-
i1L
C O N 0 OO.OQ p L 0
N ° 4- ° O E W O Co Q U C 0
t/j p N O -p O 4= L a) E j cv � L
C C C O O D O C L N a) .0 �.' >, X 4�— N O Q
° 'U O O O Cu O Q. �+ tq OL L .�, N p� X � � >, C �`- �_
}, 0 C 2 U 4' 'C C C O Q- 2 � +• O U cv o O L O O C
U 4- N E O O -Q N 'p to O = O C +. >, U Q
O (II O c E Cu -, cu N Q' N> cII a) a) O C
o aao0Em E�>, 0cam'- QL� H3'c�i
m � a ai CD�co �� E �Q ° o-C c�v
8 -o mx o CL (1) M ono ccC titC 0�o�,0 °0
� C °� -0 E � U ass moo ° rn .O •v- >- Co o_ °
U) ° vi B a°i � c �, E L) c �V( C ° 0)- -° ° C M °�
Co a) CL U) tII Co O Co 0) a) �- ° M .E '� O C N O Q 0, N 0 8 a) = OL N
rn Q-0MM0 .cE .00�� CoC =E� oo- o.Efl.� 4- Co oao�E �CCo0 a) LLwEZ E =Uaa) >- 40-MM�3°,
0
wv3�.� I�—�Mo E =a O
Attachment 3 -2
•
•
5-n
o
-v 3
0 0
cQ �
0 o
0 3
v
v
0
r».
1
�• o
O
�C
CD
•
•
Attachment 4-1
Resident Contact:
Sound Proofing & Airport Concerns
Wed., May 29
Resident
7400 block of
Wanted to know
Remaining block
Dupont Avenue
which blocks were
information given.
remaining in NFT &
No follow-up.
RA- wants to drop
leaf=lets about her
house up for sale.
Wed., May 29
Resident.
7500 block of 16th
Are they eligible for
Questions answered.
Avenue
sound insulation?
No follow-up.
Thur., May 30
Resident
6400 block of
Is there a citizen
Questions answered.
Portland Avenue
group that will
Suggested she talk to
respond to airport
MAC Risk Manager.
complaints? Noise
Gave number for
is causing cracks in
SMAAC.No
her plaster.
follow-up requested.
Fri., May 31
Resident
6400 block of 11th
May install A/C, are
Questions answered.
Attended airport
Avenue
they go to be
No follow-up
issues meeting 5/16
insulated.
requested.
questions about N/S
runway and 4/22.
Fri., May 31
Resident
7200 block of Park
Is he in the sound
Left message
Avenue
proofing area; if not,
answering questions.
Why not?
Fri., May 31
Realtor
Listing at 6512 16th
What needs to be
Questions answered.
Avenue
done to get home
Referred him to CEE
into insulation
and MAC for further
program? Also had
questions. No
question regarding
in E. Blmgtn.
follow-up requested.
client
near Mall.
Tues., June 4
Resident
6300 block of 19th
House movers left a
MAC contacted.
Avenue
home right next to
House moved that
her house for 4
day. Mowing will
weeks and property
is not being mowed.
be taken care of.
Letter sent 6/11 to
let them know of
actions taken.
Tues., June 4
Resident
7600 block of 14th
He is considering
Questions answered
Avenue
new windows; will
and issues explained.
he ever get sound
No follow-up
insulation?
requested.
Tues., June 4
Dave Verhasselt
Channel 5 News
Doing a story on
Information
NINA hushkits;
provided. No
wanted some info
follow-up at this
and contacts.
time.
Wed., June 5
Resident
6300 block of
"H field" growing
9T
Staff contacted him
Mayor to
Longfellow Avenue
in because
is not being
to say that MAC will
be taking the
asked staff
property
care of
contact.
Kept up.
Droblem right away.
140 follow-up.
Thur., June 6
Resident
6500 block of 13th
Called before, was
I
Issues explained.
Avenue
asked to call back
Gave MAC noise
Attachment 4 -2
•
•
after legislative
comp amt number
session to find out if
for more information
insulation area will
on RUS. No follow -
be expanded. Also
up at this time.
wondering about
RUS.
Thur., June 6
Resident
7500 block of 16th
What is happemn
Issues explained.
No follow
Avenue
with sound -proo mg
-up
and Runway 4 -22?
requested.
Thur., June 6
Resident
6500 block of
NFT friend told her
Resident is a
Bloomington
that the noise buffer
frequent caller.
for the airport was
Asked her to refer
for
going all the way to
friend to staff
Bloomington Ave.;
clarification of what
didn't understand
the "buffer zone" is.
what this meant;
No follow -up
very frustrated with
requested.
noise.
Fri., June 7
Edina resident
6600 block of
How can citizens get
Explained MASAC,
Cornelia Drive
involved to reduce
SMAAC, Part 150,
noise around
north- south,
airport? Asked for
legislation, etc.
explanation of north-
Invited him to attend
south expansion,
MASAC meeting.
insulation etc.
No follow-up.
Mon., June 10
Resident
1700 block of East
Neighbors are in the
Staff contacted CEE.
66th Street
insulation program;
Letter was sent
how come they
inviting them to
haven't been
April meeting. Will
contacted?
be included in
September meeting.
No follow-up.
Mon., June 10
Resident
6500 block of 22nd
They contacted
Message left by
Avenue
Council Member
staff. No follow -up
Priebe regarding
at this time.
NFT vacant lots not
being mowed.
Mon., June 10
Resident
6400 block of 11th
Outside current
Questions answered.
Avenue
contour; will new
o follow -up at this
FAA funding allow
time.
her to get in. Can
she get decibel meter
to measure noise?
Will going to FAA
herself help?
Wed., June 12
Resident
6600 block of
Expects noise when
Staff called noise
Sheridan Avenue
wind is from W/NW
line and reached
but not when it is
MAC staff. Called
from E /SE... Nobody
resident to let her
is staffing noise
know. Encouraged
complaint line at
her to call City with
MAC.
any other concerns.
Wed., June 12
Resident
6200 block of
Noise has been very
Provided noise
Bryant Avenue
bad past several
complaint line phone
her
weeks, especially
number. Asked
before 6:00 a.m. and
to contact City with
after 11:00 P.M.
future concerns.
Wed., June 12
Resident
6600 block of 14th
Who can she write to
Suggested she write
Avenue
be included in sound
state representatives.
insulation program?
No follow up at this
time.
is
•
Attachment 4 -3
Wed., June 12
Resident
6500 block of
Are they eligible for
Questions answered.
Bloomington
sound insulation- if
so, when? Maybe
Referred to CEE for
questions about
doing work on
window work. No
basement egress
follow -up work at
windows.
this time.
Thur., June 13
Resident
6500 block of 21 st
He is upset about
Staff updated him as
Avenue
uncut grass on
to what actions are
acquired. properties
being taken. No
next to his.
follow -up at this
time.
Mon., June 17
Resident
7600 block of 13th
Checking again to
Showed him the map
Walk -in
Avenue
see if his block is
and explained 4/22
eligible yet for
situation.. No
insulation.
follow-up requested.
Tues., June 18
Minneapolis resident
5200 block of 10th
Insulation was done
Prioritization of
Avenue
by lottery before,
blocks explained.
what is happening
Referred to CEE for
now?
vrioritv estimate.
Tues., June 18
Eagan resident
1700 block of Four
Called in May about
Questions answered.
Oaks Road
stabilization zone
Will send eligility
eligibility.
for income tax break
Wondering about
for new purchasers.
4/22 and N/S Rw s.
Mon., June 24
Resident
6500 block of 13th
Called MAC noise
Staff will raise issue
Avenue
complaint line,
at MASAC meeting
which said the
with FAA tower
Tower was taking
reps. Staff will call
off to the NW even
resident back.
when winds are not
a factor. Why?
Mon., June 24
Resident
area of 6400 Penn
Why is noise so
Staff will call him
severe lately over his
back with more info
area?
after MASAC.
Tues., June 25
Resident
6300 block of
MAC noise
Explained 4 -22
Thomas Avenue
complaint line is
closure for repair.
always busy; is it
Asked resident to
disconnected? Noise
keep calling noise
is really bad in early
10
line. Explamed past
litigation
mornings and -11
regarding
at night. She would
depreciating values
like Mt Checchi and
caused by noise.
Mr. Wilson to pay
Staff will call back if
part of her property
anythin new at
taxes.
MASAC meeting.
Tues., June 25
Resident
6200 block of
Noise is really bad
Explained some air
Russell Avenue
lately. There is also
quality studies
pollution from
regarding aircraft.
planes accumulating
Gave resident the
on yard furniture.
noise complaint line
number. No follow-
up requested.
This information was gathered May 29 - June 26, 1996.*
*Note: Names of residents have been deleted for this report. Council Members wishing to respond directly to
resident's comment or question may do so by contacting the Media Assistant/Airport Issues at ext. 716.
• JDV:ttf
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 31
Agenda July 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Status of City maintenance facility, 7700 Pillsbury Avenue.
Background:
The following is a list of recent activities which affect the City maintenance facility
located at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue:
• Several developers have expressed interest in the City maintenance facility and old
Lampert Lumber property located on the 1 -494 frontage road. The Richfield Housing
and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) owns the Lampert site. The Utilities,
Engineering, and Government Buildings divisions have operated out of this site
since 1992 when the City maintenance facility was partially demolished, and the
Lampert site purchased and remodeled, to make room for the 77th Street Project.
• The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is interested in constructing
a maintenance facility in the Richfield area to replace facilities they are losing to
redevelopment and road projects. They are interested in building a joint facility with
Richfield. A study has been initiated by MnDOT and the City of Richfield related to a
combined maintenance facility.
• City staff has been looking at alternative locations for a maintenance facility. The
prime candidate for a relocated facility is in the vacated New Ford Town or Rich
Acres neighborhoods. Other alternatives will be discussed at the Study Session.
• MnDOT has worked out a preliminary agreement with the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) to construct a facility in the vacated New Ford Town
neighborhood.
The existing 7700 Pillsbury site is small and poorly laid out for maintenance garage
purposes, is located in a prime redevelopment area, and its sale could provide funds
needed for a new facility to be located elsewhere. A City maintenance facility has
been part of the long range Capital Improvement Program for many years. The
proposed 1997 Capital Improvement Budget identifies $4.773 million for
construction, without land costs, of a City maintenance facility.
Recommended Motion:
There is no action recommended at this time. The discussion is intended to provide
direction to staff regarding a City maintenance facility.
Basis of Recommendation:
Improvements could be brought about through any of several possible options. Council
direction would be helpful in narrowing the field of options and providing direction for
coordination with other agencies.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This discussion has been scheduled for July 1, 1996.
Respectfu submitted,
Jame .Prosser
City M nager
JDP:ds
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 30
Agenda July 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Discussion of antenna lease for Logan water tower.
Background:
At the June 24, 1996 regular City Council meeting there was first reading of an interim
ordinance which authorizes a study to be conducted and a moratorium to be imposed on
the development of telecommunications towers in the City. However, City staff and the
City Attorney have been working on a lease arrangement which would provide for antenna
to be placed on the Logan water tower.
Because there has been conversation and staff consideration of antenna on water towers
for several months, Council is being asked to consider exempting the placement of
antenna on the Logan water tower from the study to be conducted and moratorium
discussed at the June 24, 1996 Council meeting. Photographs of antenna attached to
area water towers will be available for review at the study session. The typical rate for a
lease for an antenna on a water tower is $10,000 per year.
Recommended Motion:
No action needed at this time. In the event Council indicates the Logan water tower may
. be exempted from the study, Council will be asked at a regular Council meeting to
consider the proposed lease arrangement.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The antennas on the tower will not cause any problems with the production of water for
the City of Richfield.
2. The study associated with the moratorium is more directly related to construction of new
towers while the water tower is an existing structure.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Hold all antenna considerations in abeyance pending results of the proposed study.
2. Suggest staff consider a bidding approach to use of the towers or other City owned
structures for attaching of antenna.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item will be discussed at the July 1, 1996 Council Study Session.
• Jame Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 29
Agenda July 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Discussion of traffic calming on 70th Street between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue.
Background:
Residents over the years have complained about traffic on residential streets. Issues
they have raised include:
• excessive speed of traffic;
• excessive traffic volumes;
• too much through traffic;
• too many accidents; and
• danger to pedestrians and children.
The concept of traffic calming has evolved since the 1960's as a way of using urban
design to tame the invasive nature of the automobile in residential neighborhoods.
Residents of 70th Street have experienced the highest volumes of through traffic on a
local street in Richfield. In response to a stop sign request at 70th Street and Thomas
• Avenue by residents, City staff have agreed to investigate traffic calming measures to
address residents' concerns. A background report on 70th Street is attached for
Council review.
If Council endorses the use of traffic calming, City staff will begin the study on 70th
Street in late July or August of this year, with corrective measures taken in September
or October. The study will emphasize neighborhood involvement to ensure its success.
Recommended Motion:
This is for discussion only. City staff wishes to inform the Council before initiating the
traffic calming study on 70th Street between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. City Engineering staff is convinced that a typical response of additional stop signs
will not correct the traffic problems on 70th Street.
2. Traffic calming has the potential to correct the traffic problems and enhance the
residential character of 70th Street.
3. Effective traffic calming may require physical improvements that are expensive and
may not be accepted by all affected citizens.
• 4. Traffic calming, if done improperly, may shift traffic to another residential street
creating a new problem.
• Alternative Recommendation:
Install stop signs in a basketweave pattern; i.e., every other block on 70th Street.
However, studies show that this does not reduce speeds or traffic volumes.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for discussion at the July 1, 1996 Council Study Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Jams Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
Attachment
•
•
• June 18, 1996
Background Report on Traffic Issues Concerning
70th Street West of Penn Avenue
Seventieth Street was originally platted in 1927 along a section line as residential
development was planned to the north of 70th Street. By 1936 the area south of 70th
Street was also subdivided for single family residential development. Twenty homes on
the south side of 70th Street now front onto the street. The remaining eight homes on
the south side and fifteen homes on the north side face the side streets.
70TH STREET MILESTONES
• The residential area north of 70th Street was first platted in 1927 including 69th
Street and the area to the south of 70th Street was platted in 1936. Seventieth
Street had a 63' right of way width between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue. The
right of way width for 69th Street is 60 feet.
• In the 1930's and 40's State Highway 100 was built as a belt line route around the
western and southern suburbs of Minneapolis. Seventieth Street in Edina provided
the east -west arterial feeding traffic onto Highway 100.
• In the late 1950's 69th Street served as the southern boundary of the Southdale
Shopping Center carrying Richfield traffic to and from the mall.
• In 1958 69th Street was designated a Municipal State Aid Street. By the early
1960's it was identified as a collector. A collector street is supposed to carry traffic
from local residential streets to arterial streets such as York Avenue and Penn
Avenue.
• By the mid 1970's 69th and 70th Streets in Richfield were paved as two -lane roads
As a collector 69th Street was built wider and stronger than 70th Street. The paved
surface width of 69th Street was 37 feet 4 inches and for 70th Street it was 34 feet
from the back of curb to back of curb. Also, parking was banned on one side of 69th
Street to ease traffic flow.
• In 1982 the City's Comprehensive Plan reaffirmed 70th Street west of Penn Avenue
as a local street and 69th Street west of Penn Avenue as a collector.
• In the 1980's the City built a traffic signal at 69th Street and Penn Avenue so traffic
on 69th Street could gain access to Penn Avenue.
• Traffic volumes on both 69th Street and 70th Street have steadily increased over the
years. Traffic counts taken in recent years show the following:
0
C7
70th Street
Average Daily Traffic Volumes:
«:;;:;;:; :< ><:> : >: >: >:: >: >:::::::: > >< >: < > :::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::1'991.
....................................................................................................
92' <> >
> > ' 'I 993 =9' >
< . < 1995 9 >
...............................
West of Penn Avenue
N. A.
1,900
2,500
East of Xerxes Avenue
N. A.
2,800
3,000
East of York Avenue
5,100
4,600
6,800
Note: Residential streets in Richfield typically carry 300 to 1,000 vehicles per day.
69th Street
Average Daily Traffic Volumes:
»::::..
Cocat�on :....::.. ::::. >>
................:..:..:..........................................:.:.:::...
::.::..........;:.;:::.
.. 1. 991- 92::::::::::::::::.
.......::.::.::,.............,.
;::<1993 -94
,: ,.:.............................................
1995 96.
...............................
West of Penn Avenue
3,000
3,800
3,500
East of Xerxes Avenue
2,600
3,300
3,500
East of York Avenue
4,200
4,000
5,100
Note: Two -lane collector streets can carry 1,000 or more vehicles per day.
• In 1996 Richfield residents expressed concern about the possibility of increased
traffic generated by a proposed Cub Food store to be built at 68th Street and York
Avenue.
• Over the years residents have complained about too much through traffic, high
traffic volumes and excessive speeding on 70th Street between Penn Avenue and
Xerxes Avenue.
• Several residents in 1996 have asked for stop signs to be installed at the
intersection of Thomas Avenue and 70th Street. There have been three right -angle
accidents at this intersection in the past five years although not enough to meet the
City's criteria for installing two -way stop signs. No other intersection along 70th
Street has had more than one accident in the past five years. Furthermore, City
staff do not believe stop signs will correct problems of high traffic volumes,
excessive speed and too much through traffic.
• In 1996 the City's Planning Commission endorsed the use of traffic calming
measures in residential neighborhoods as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 28
Agenda July 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Discussion of the 1995 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Background:
The City's 1995 financial audit was recently completed by the firm of Deloitte & Touche.
The comprehensive annual financial report was officially presented to the City Council
at its regular meeting on June 24, 1996.
The discussion of the 1995 CAFR by the auditors is meant to be an informal, but more
in depth, review of the 1995 year -end report. The auditors will not only review the
CAFR document but will present other comparative financial analysis as well.
Please be sure to bring to this meeting your copy of the CAFR which was distributed
with the June 24 Council agenda packet.
Recommended Motion:
No formal action is being recommended at this time. Instead, this is meant to be a
more detailed presentation of the 1995 CAFR.
•
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The financial audit and formal report of the 1995 fiscal year have been completed.
2. Presentation of the report at a Study Session provides an opportunity for more in-
depth discussion of the report as well as trends and comparisons identified by the
auditors.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Study Session discussion of this item could be omitted and presented at a regular
City Council, meeting.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
No action is required.
Respectfully submitted,
James . rosser
City Man ger
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Study Session Letter No. 27
Agenda July 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Discussion of the extension of 1 -35W High Occupancy Vehicle lane from 1 -494 to 46th
Street.
Background:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation has proposed to extend the High
Occupancy Vehicle lane on 1 -35W from 1-494 to 46th Street in Minneapolis (See
attached map.). If approved, work south of 66th Street could begin as soon as 1999.
The Council will be asked to approve the proposed design by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation in August 1996.
A preliminary review by City staff indicates the project will:
• enhance safety in the 62 Crosstown section by separating traffic on 62 Crosstown
from the traffic on 1 -35W;
• keep regional trips on the regional highway network and off of local streets;
• require some right of way acquisition;
• promote public transit and carpooling; and
• recognize that this proposal will not correct all 1 -35W deficiencies.
aCity staff still have some concerns about the proposal. They include:
• acquisition of land needed for storm water ponding;
• right of way implications for Richfield and Minneapolis;
• the trade off between eastbound 62 access to Lyndale Avenue versus additional
right of way;
• economic impact resulting from the elimination of access to northbound 1 -35W at
Lyndale Avenue;
• options for a transit hub in the Crosstown area since the Minnegasco site will not be
acquired for a transit hub;
• the need for improvements along 66th Street in the vicinity of 1 -35W;
• traffic impacts on local streets in response to the proposed improvement;
• the potential for bike /pedestrian trails crossing 1 -35W at the Soo Line, at 66th Street
and at Portland Avenue, and along 1 -35W on surplus land, especially west of
Portland Avenue;
• the importance of sensitive design of noise and retaining walls; and
• the potential for redevelopment opportunities.
Several business people, in conjunction with the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, have
expressed their concern regarding the loss of access from 62 Crosstown Highway to
Lyndale Avenue.
Adam Josephson, 1 -35W Project Manager of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, will attend the Study Session and make a brief presentation to the
Council.
A preliminary redevelopment concept, prepared by Tom Martinson in response to the I-
35W plan, will be available at the Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
None. This item is for discussion purposes only.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Although the MnDOT proposal doesn't correct all 1 -35W deficiencies, it is generally
consistent with the City's position on 1 -35W:
• by keeping regional trips on the regional highway network;
by providing an HOV lane rather than light rail transit; and
• by promoting highspeed bus service and carpooling.
2. The proposal can be built under existing budgetary limits.
3. Refinements in the design are possible to lessen negative effects on Richfield.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Consider several minor refinements to the MnDOT proposal designed to reduce
negative impacts on Richfield. Revisions in the design may improve its acceptability
to the City.
2. Consider the alternative of adding eastbound 62 access to Lyndale Avenue versus
acquiring additional right of way in Richfield.
3. Consider continued support for the City's preferred alternative, the Diamond Lane
Alternative. This may not be appropriate without additional highway funding being
identified.
4. Consider opposing the proposal.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The Council should explore options to improve the proposed design. No decision is
needed at this time. A decision will be requested in August of this year.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam inager
rosser
City
JDP:ds
Attachment
l-
IE
1 -35W1 "VV
Proposed
62
62 Area
140 1
� xoy �Es
%A
a
a
z
J
50 T"s �—
62
i ��t,•
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 26
Agenda July 1, 1996
Issue Statement:
Meeting with the Community Services Commission.
Background:
The City Council meeting with the Community Services Commission is one of a series
of meetings between the City's Boards and Commissions and the City Council. The
purpose of this joint meeting is to provide an informal opportunity for Commission
members to inform the City Council of recent and current issues. It also provides a
forum for an open dialogue between the City Council and the Commission. Items the
Community Services Commission would like to discuss include: Repair, replacement
and rehabilitation of aging parks and facilities, Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield and
the Master Park Plan.
Recommended Motion:
There is no action recommended.
Basis. of Recommendation:
The Council has provided an opportunity for the Community Services Commission to
meet jointly with the Council to discuss topics of mutual interest and concern. Any
discussion which might ultimately lead to an action would have the consideration for
specific action scheduled for a regular Council meeting.
F-'1Ur-TNMM- X-TV117111 am
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This joint meeting has been scheduled for July 1, 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam4Mager rosser
City
JDP:cak
Copy: Elayne Gilhousen, Community Services Commission Chair