Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
5-4-92 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MONDAY, MAY 4, 1992 7:00 P.M. (NOTE TIME CHANGE) CALL TO ORDER I. 7:00-7:15 P.M. DISCUSSION CONCERNING REQUEST TO DELETE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT AND MINIMUM MARKET VALUE REQUIREMENT IN ORDINANCE FOR ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSED ESTABLISHMENTS STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 24 ' II. 7:15-8:00 P.M. POLICY AND STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 25 III. 8:00-8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION CONCERNING CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 26 8:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 26 Agenda May 4, 1992 Issue Statement: Discussion of .rules of procedure for City Council. Background• Several months ago, the Council directed staff to investigate alternative parliamentary procedures and rules of procedures for City Council and Boards and Commissions. After some research, the City invited-Joy Robb, Mayor of Robbinsdale, to present the rules of procedure adopted by Robbinsdale and to discuss the Sturgis Parliamentary Procedure. Attached are copies of the minutes and materials presented at that meeting. Mayor Kirsch has requested that this item be discussed at a Study Session. Recommended Motion: Review the rules of procedure and summary of Sturgis. Basis for Recommendation: Mayor request. Alternative Recommendation: This matter may be discussed by the Council at a later time. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the Study Session of May 4. Respectfully submitted, Jam Prosser City nager JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA JOINT MEETING OF CITY BOARD AND COMMISSION CHAIRS March 6, 1992 7:00 P.M. STAFF PRESENT: James Prosser, City Manager; and Thomas Ferber, City Clerk. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOARD/COMMISSIONS: John Boyle, Human Rights Commission; Bill Watson, Civil Service Commission; Bill Snyder, Planning Commission; Tom Ticen, Charter Commission; Garnett Kirchner, Sister City Commission; Connie McDonald, Human ..Services. Commission; Carlene Ulmer, Advisory Board of Health; and Jo Romer, Advisory Board of Health. GUEST SPEAKER: Joy Robb, Mayor of Robbinsdale City Manager Prosser stated the purpose of the meeting was to discuss alternative parliamentary procedures in response to Board and Commission members concerns related to the conduct of meetings. Mayor Joy Robb of Robbinsdale stated the purpose of parliamentary procedures were: 1. Expedite business 2. Maintain order 3. Insure justice 4. Provide equal treatment for all Mayor Robb introduced the Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure as an alternative to Robert's Rules of Order. Mayor Robb stated that the Robbinsdale City Council adopted the Sturgis system because Robert's Rules were too technical and cumbersome to use. She stated that Sturgis is an understandable, sound system that reflects current practices. Mayor Robb then reviewed and discussed the following: * "Rules of Procedure and Decorum" * Citizen participation guidelines * Agenda * Role of the Chair * Role of Council/Commission Members * Questions the Chair/Member can ask to Improve the Discussion * Order and decorum * Motions/Voting Mayor Robb stated that most important aspect was for the group to adopt a system of rules that are fair, understandable, and make. good common sense. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at .8:20 p.m. RLLES OF PE~OCEDURE ATv~ DECORUM CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ROBBINSDALE, MINNESOTA adopted January 'L, 1980 SEC'T'ION 1. PURPOSE Subd. 1. General. It is recognized that in order to enhance the con- cept of effective and democratic government, it is essential that a legislative body establish formal rules of procedure and decorum so that a true deliberative process will be observed and not disturbed.. SECTION 2. GET]ERAL Subd. 1. Law. The City Charter, Ordinances and State Statutes governing the City Council shall be followed and supplemented by the Rules of Procedure and Decorum of the City Council. Subd. 2. General Rules. In all matters of parliamentary procedures, the Council shall be governed by the latest printed edition of the STLRGIS STa1dDARD CODE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCIDURE as published from time to time except as modified by these rules. SECTION 3. PRESIDING OFFICER S~abd. 1. Who Presides. The Mayor shall preside at all meetings of the Council. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem shall preside. The presiding officer shall have the power to preserve strict order and decorum at meetings, enforce the rules of pro- cedure, and determine without debate, subject to the final decision of the Council on appeal, all questions of procedure and order. Subd. 2. Anneal of the Ruling_of the Presiding Officer. Any member of the C<~uncil may appeal from•a ruling of the presidin; officer. If the appeal is ser_onded, the member m~.-y speak once solely on the question involved and the presiding officer may explain his rul- ing, but no other Counr..il member shall partir_ipate in the discus- sion. The appeal shall be sustained if it is approved bs- a ma.jori t.v vot,e. Sutxj. 3. Rights <>f the Presiding Officer. The presiding officer ma~• sp~;alc on any c;uestion, and make motions and second motions. .SECTION 4. AGEWA Subd. 1. Matters for Consideration. Matters for Council action shall be submitted by members of the Co~xncil and residents to the City Manager. Subd. 2. Preparation. An agenda of business for. each regular meeting shall be prepared in the Office of the City Manager and copies , thereof delivered to each Council member as far in advance of the meeting as time for preparation will permit. Subd. 3. Order of Business at Regular Meetings. At the hour appointed for. the regular meeting of the City- Council, the meeting shall be called to order by the Mayor and iri the Mayor's absence, by the vor Pro Tem. If a quorum is present, the Citv Council shall Ma , then proceed with its business in the following-order: 1) Call. to Order , 2) Roll Call 3) Opportunity for .the Public to Address the City Council on Matters not on the Agenda 4) Approval of the Agenda for the Meeting 5) Consent Agenda: (a) approval of the minutes of the last City Council meeting; (b) other routine, non-controversial items • needing little or no deliberation. 6) Recognitions, Proclamations 7) Informational Presentations/Guest Speakers 8) Public Hearings 9> Old Business lU) New Business 1 ] ) Other Business l'l) Administrative Reports 13) Council General Communications l4 ) A~i,journment. fiulxi. 4. Varying ~?rder of Business.. The order of business may .be varied by the presiding officer. • Subd. ~. Consent Agenda. Matters-for the Council of a routine or non- controversial nature which need minimal Council deliberation shall be placed on the Consent Agenda.. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda shall. not be debated. At-the request of any individual Council member, an item shall be removed from the Consent Agendaand placed upon the regular agenda for debate immediately following the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda shall only be adopted by a unanimous vote of those Council members present at the meeting. Subd. 6. Items Not on the Agenda. The Council may consider items not appearing on the agenda as normal business if an objection is.not raised by a Council member. If an objection is raised by a council member to r_onsidering an item not appearing on the agenda, a vote shall betaken by the Council to determine .the appropriateness of further consideration of the matter at that time. Suhd. 7. Public Participation. hlembers of the public may address the Citz- Council-.during: (a> Public hearings (b) "Opportunity for the Public to Address the City Council on platters Not on the Agenda." This portion of the meeting shall be limited to thirty minutes and individuals shall be requested to limit their comments to four minutes or less. (c) Specific issues scheduled on the agenda but in accordance with Section 6, Subdivision 6, of these rules entitled, "Addressing the Council." Suhd. 8. Written Communications on All platters. All interested parties or their authorized representatives may address the Council by writ- ten communication regarding all matters under the Council's con- sideration. The City Manager shall place these communications on the Council Agenda under "Acknowledgment of Communications to the Council." SECTION h. VOTI1vG Su~xl. 1. Pr•oc,edure. The votes of the members on any ordinance or resole- tion pending before the Council shall.be by roll call vote. Thc~ votes of the members on any motion shill be by voice vote, unless the l`lavor or any member of the Council requests that a roll call vr~t.e be taken . The ~lay~r spa I 1 cal l for a ro 1 I cal l vote whenever a voice vote ot• the roi.tncil is not clear as t.o the dis- position c>f the action before the Council. Sutxi. 'l. Abstention. If a Council member does not. vote, the abstention shall be r•ecorcled as "Abstain--name." Subd. 3. Voting Order for Roll Call. The Secretary .to the Council shall call for the vote in consecutive order of wards with the ward _ voting first rotating one position at each regular meeting. The presiding offir_er shall always cote last. SECTION 6. RULES OF DECOR~T1. SuFxi. 1. Council. While the council is in session, the members must preserve order-and decorum,. and a member shall neither, by ,conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the Council nor disturb any member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the presiding officer. Subd. 2. Recognition. No person or member of the council shall address the Council without being recognized by the presiding officer. Subd. 3. Discussion. No member of the Council shall speak-mare than twice on any question, nor more than five minutes each time without consent of the Council. Subd. ~. Staff. Members of the City staff shall observe the same rules of order and decorum as are applicable to the City Council. Subd. 5. Pertinent to Matter Under Debate. Members of the Council, staff and public shall confine remarks to the matter under debate. Subd. 6. Addressing:the Council. Each member of the public addressing the. • Council shall step up to the microphone provided for the use of the public after. being recognized by the presiding officer and give his/her name and address in an audible tone of voice.forthe records, state the subject to be discussed, and state who the speaker. is representing if representing an organization or other. persons. Unless further time is granted by a majority vote of the Council, remarks from the public shall be limited to four (4f minutes. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to ant- member thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor. shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of t.h~~ Council, without permission of the presiding officer. No question may be asked a Co~incil member or a member of the-staff without: the permission of the presiding offic±er. Sulxi. i. Spokesman for Group of Persons. In order. to e~•pedit:e matters and to avoid repetitious presentations, whenever any grrn~p of persons wishes t.o ac~drPSS the (',ouncil on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding nfficer tc~ request that a spc>kesmar~ bc~ chosen by the group to address the Council and, in case ariditional matters are to be presented by any other member of said group, to limit ,the number of such persons addressing the. Coi ane i .1 . . • Subd. 8. After hiotion. After a motion has been made or a public hearing has been closed, no mefiber of the public shall address the Council from the. audience on the matter under consideration'with- out first securing permission to do so br• a majority vote of the City Council. Subd. 9. Conduct. Any member of the Council, stzff or person indulging in personalities or making impertinent, slanderous, or profane remarks or who willfully utters loud, threatening or abusive language, or engages in any disorderly conduct which would impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of any- meeting, hearing or other proceeding., shall be called to order by the presiding officer and, if such conduct continues, may at the discretion of the presiding officer, be ordered barred from further audience before the Council during that meeting. Subd. 10. Members of the Audience. No person in the audience shall engage in disorderly conduct such as hand clapping, stamping of feet, whistling, using profane language, yelling, and similar demon- . strations, which conduct disturbs the peace and good order of the meeting. SECTION i. ENFORCEMENTS OF DECORUM. Subd. 1. Warning. All persons shall, at the request of the presiding officer, be silent. If, after receiving a warning from the_ presiding officer, a person persists in disturbing the `meeting, said. officer may order him to remove himself from the meeting. If he does not remove himself, the presiding officer may order that the person be removed by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Sutxl. 2. Sergeant-at.-Arms. The Chief of Police, or such member or members of the police department, shall be Sergeant-at-Arms of the Council meetings. He, or they, shall carry out all orders and inst:rlrct:ions given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum at. the Council meeting. Upon instruction of the presiding officer, it shall be the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove from the meeting any person who inten- tionall,y disturbs the proceedings of the Council. Sulxl. 3. Resisting Removal. Am- person who resists removal by the Sergeant-at-Arms may be charged with violating City. Ordinance. Suhd. 4. Motions to Enforce. Any Council member may more to require the presiding officer to enforce these rules and the affirmative vote of a ma,jori t.~~ of the Counci 1 shall require him to do so. Subd. 5. Adjournment. In the event that any meeting is willfully d.isturhed by a group or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meetir-g unfeasible and when order canr~c~t be restored by the removal of individuals who are creating thr~ disturbance, the meeting may be adjourned with the remaining business considered at the next, regular meeting. Sut~d. Ei. St~ecial meetings. If the matter being addressed prior to • adjournment is of such a nature as to demand immediate attention, the presiding officer may call a special meeting. SECTION 8. WORFiSHOP h1EET'INGS Subd. 1. General. Workshop meetings of the City Councilmay be held at the call of the hlavor Pro Tem, who shall serve as thepresiding officer at workshop meetings. No official Council action will be taken at workshop meetings.. Subd. "l. Rules of .Procedure and Decorum. The Rules of Procedure. and Decorum of the City Council shall be observed in workshops so far as they are applicable. SECTION 9. CAh'iEF2AS AND RECORDING DEVICES Subd. 1. Use of Cameras and Recording Devices Limited. Cameras, including television and motion picture. cameras, electronic sound recording devices and any other mechanical, electrical or electronic recording devices may be used in the 'Council Chamber, but only in such a manner as will cause a minimum of interference with or disturbance of the proceedings of the Council. SECTION 10. SEPARABILITI' • Subd. 1. General. If any section, subsection,. sentence, clause,. phra:-~~ ~r portion of these Rules of Procedure and Decorum is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent ,juris- diction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity ~f the. remaining portions thereof. (Amended: 3une 19, 198; March 19, 1986; February 7, 1989; September 5, 1989! CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. FEBRUARY I8, 1992 .4221 Lake Road Robbinsdale, Minnesota A G E N D A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The City Council is meeting as s legislative body to conduct the business of the City according to the RULES OF OROCEDURE AND DECORUM OF THE CITT COUNCIL. Unless so ordered by the Mayor, citizen participation is limited to the following times and always within the prescribed rules of conduct for public input st meetings. A) Pt16lIC HEARINGS: Public hearings are conducted so that the public effected by a proposal may have input into the decision. During hearings, all affected residents will be given an opportunity to speak pursuant to the RULES Of PROCEDURE AND DECORUM Of THE CITT COUNCIL. B) OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUfil.1C TO ADDRESS THE CiTT CL7UNCil. CN riA7TERS MOT ON THE AGENDA: Any member of the public may speak at this time on any item NOT on the agenda. In consideration for the public attending the meeting for specifit ite+ns on the agenda, this portion of the meeting vill be limited to fifteen <TS) minutes. Individuals are requested to limit their Comments to tour (4) minutes or less. If the majority of the Council determines that additional-time on a specific issue is warranted, then discussion on that issue shall be continued under Other Business at the end of the agenda. Before addressing the City Council, members of the public are asked to step up to the microphone, give their name, address end state the subject to be discussed. all remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof. No person other than members of the Council aril the person having the floor Shall be permitted to enter into any discussion without permission of the presiding officer. No question may be asked a Council member or a member of the staff without the permission of the presiding officer. four participation, as prescribed by the Council's RULES, is welcomed and your cooperation is greatly appreciated. 1 CITY COUNCIL HEETZNG CALLED TO .ORDER 2 ROLL CAI L: Johnson, Blonigan, Ruffenach, Holtz, Mayor Robb 3 OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA 4 APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 1992 HEETING AGENDA. i ~~ O ~ ~I ~. Z 0 'w;n ~ O A ?~ ~.~ ~ ^ N ~ ~ N O c ~ $ d '°:03 mn3.~ K ~ C 91 N ~ ~ °'u+ N N ~ ~ ~:.1 W ~ O O r ~ `< ~ G 6 o. 'o N$® m N C ~-'O o ~ G 3N~d.v ?~. O. < ~ c^ m' mL a °~ ' e'o w o~ ~ a~ ~ 3 c m Q 1 o~gA ~p f > > -~ O'^~p .,. N O Ado ~~~ .~ Q~o :: . ~H3 c $. ~ .., ! ..~ G .~- Z ~. Ofi ~`~ p m~ m~ Z Z ~ -~ m N ~ -o ~, '' ~ z ~ ~ ~ 9 Z ~ in.. ~+y~0 O~ ~ ~ iR ~v p m p Z ,zT, ~ z ~ ~ m ~ ~ C y ., fVr, ..+ p m D .t p ~ ,p ~ .~ ~ N z ~ O rt ~O 9 z 03 ~ '9 '^ p m 4 ~~ if. ~ t '9 m Z N 9 ~ i ~ ': p ~L __ ~+ .+ ,f ~ `~ -- ~ C `• t^ c (~ ~' a, ~° o 0 obi .L t~ o o a. o~ 9tr "~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k iY 'S p• ~ e -s ~ ~ ~ 0 b ~ 1~ ~ 3 ~'. ~ G ~7 (~1 {gyp S e (~ ~• ~ V+ L ~I"l~! i~ 1 ~ a ~j` o > ~~nn ~ ~ ~~3 1 ~~•!' Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ p Z p gyp}} ~ ~ ~ C ' ~ s ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 N N O.. a -c v 3 .z Z ~ ~ ~ 1f O O -~ 1 C 6 a ~ O y~ ~~ 1 T N ~ c o ~ ~ 3 ~5 ~ ~ ~'~ 3 z ~ ~ $ p ~~ a : ~ ~ ~ P~ %i a ~ w ,~ ~ .. ~ fi ~~ ~ ~~ C~ ~ ~ ~ o N ~s ~ S .THE MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER ` 1. Quorum 2. Role of the Chair 3. Role of Council & Commission Members 4. Questions the Chair/Member Can Ask to Improve the Discussion 5, Ten Keys to Effective Listening 6. Ending the Meeting 7. Chair's Time Checklist 11 t ~_ • ' j Before calling the meeting to order, it is the duty ~f the Chair to know whether a quorum is present. If there is not a quorum, the meeting is called to order, the absence of a quorum is announced, and the meeting is adjourned. The minutes will show the absence of a quorum and the time of adjournment. No business can be transacted in the absence of a quorum. A recess may be .called to provide time to call absent members in the hope of obtaining a quorum for an important. meeting.. A motion may be made to fix the time to which to adjourn, which provides for a continuation of business scheduled for the meeting. Even unanimous consent will not allow members to conduct business in the absence of a quorum... The requirement of a quorum serves to protect against an unrepresented action taken by a small number of individuals on behalf of-the entire meeting. body. Any actions taken without a quorum can be declared null and void at the next meeting. • The Chair is the Presiding Officer of the meeting. The duties are to: 1. Open the meeting on time and call the meeting to order. 2. Announced in proper sequence the business on the agenda. 3. Recognize members. who are entitled to the floor. 4. State .and put to a vote all legitimate questions that arise during the meeting. If a motion is out of order, the Chair should rule it out of order. 5. Protect the council or commission from frivolous or delaying motions by refusing to recognize them. 6. Enforce the rules regarding debate and keep order. 7. Expedite business in a way compatible with the rights of the members. 8. Decide all questions of order. 9. .Respond to inquiries of r-embers. l0. Declare the meeting adjourned. 13 BOLE OF COUNCIL AND COMMISSION I~~ERS • 1. Council and commission members should make every effort to attend every meeting and be on time. 2. Effective Council and commission members understand the rules of , procedure as well as parliamentary procedure and abide by them. 3. Members should address all remarks through the Chair. 4. Members should use their parliamentary knowledge in a construc- tive manner rather than hindering or obstructing the business of the meeting. 5. Members should be knowledgeable and familiar with the issues before them so they can participate in the meeting my: a. Introducing motions; b. Seconding another Council or commission member's motion; c. Debating the issue according to the rules or asking ques- tions of information regarding issues;. and d, Voting. • (1) A member may vote but cannot be forced to do so, unless your rules provide otherwise. A member should not vote. on questions of direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members. (2) A member may change a vote before the result is announced, or with a majority vote of the Council. (3) A member may request a rising. vote by calling "Divi- sion"' when a voice vote or show of hands is in doubt. 6. Members should enjoy their experience on the Council or comms- sion. 14 OL~'STTONS THE CHAIR OR A l~BER CAN ASR t TO IMPROVE DISCU SSIONS To Omen Discussion "Could we clarify the terms connected with. this topic?" "What do you think the general idea or problem is?" ' What are the elements essential~to understanding the topic?" "would anyone care to offer suggestions on facts we need to better our understanding of the problem or topic?" To Broaden Participation "Now that we have heard from a number of our members, would others who have not spoken like to add their ideas?" "How do the ideas presented thus far sound to those of you who have been thinking about them?" y To Limit Participation "we .appreciate your contributions. However, it might be well to hear. from some of the others. Would some of you who have not spoken care to add your ideas to those already expressed?" "You have made several good statements, and I am wondering if someone else might like to make some remarks." "Since all our group members have not yet had an opportunity to speak, I wonder if you could hold your comments until a little later?" To Focus Discussion "Where. are we now in relation to our goal for this discussion?" "Would you like to have me review my understanding of the things we have-said and the progress we have made in this discussion?" "Your comment is interesting. However, I wonder if it is quite on target for. the problem we're discussing." 15 A. ... ~,o Helo the Grouo Move Alone "I wonder if we have. spent enough time on this phase of the problem. Should we move to another aspect of it?" "Have we gone into this part of the problem far enough so that we might now shift our attention and consider this additional area?" "In view of the item we have set for ourselves, would it not be well to look at the next .question before us?" e Grouo Evaluate "I wonder if any of you have a feeling that we are blocked on the particular question; why are we tending to slow down?" "Should we take a look at our on final ob'ective for this discussion.- . 9 7 and see where we are in relation to it?" "Now that we are nearing the conclusion of our meeting, would anyone like to-offer suggestions on how we might improve our next meeting?" ~'o Help the Group Reach a Decision . "Am Z right in sensing agreement on these points?" (Chair then gives a brief summary.) • "Since we tend to be moving in .the direction of a decision, should we consider what it will mean for our group if we decide the matter in .this .way?" "What have we accomplished in our discussion up to this point?" To Lend Continuity to the Discussion "Since we had time for a particular consideration of the problem at the last meeting, would someone care to review what we covered then?" "Since we cannot reach a decision at this meeting, what are some of the points. we should take up at the next one?" "Would someone care to suggest points which need further study before we convene again?" 16 '10 KEYS TO EFFECTIVE LISTENING These keys are a positive guideline to better listening. In fact. they're at the heart of developing better listening habits that could last a lifetime. 10 Keys to ENectlve Llstening The Ineffective Liatrner The Effective Listener 1. Finds areas of interest Tunes out dry subjects Opportunizes: asks- "what's in it for me?" 2. Judge content. not delivery Tunes out if delivery is Judges content. skips ' poor over delivery errors 3. Hold your. fire Tends to enter into Doesn't judge until argument comprehension complete 4. Listen for ideas Listens for facts Listens for central themes 5. Be flexible Takes intensive notes Takes fewer notes. Uses using only one system 4-5 different systems. depending on speaker 6. Work at listening Shows no energy Works hard, exhibits output. Attention is active body state 7. Resist distractions 8. Exercise your mind 9. Keep your mind open faked Distracted easily Resists difficult material; seeks light material Reacts to emotional words 10. Capitalize on tact thought is Tends to daydream. with taster than speech slow speakers Fights or avoids distractions, tolerates bad habits. knows how to concentrate Uses heavier material as txercise for the mind ~lnterprets color words; does not get hung up on them Challenges. anticipates. summarizes. weighs the evidence, listens between the tines to tone of voice. 17 ENDING THE MEETING , ~. Research shows that people mote often remember the way a meeting ends than either the middle or the beginning of the meeting. To make the close of a meeting memorable, meeting participants should:. 1. Feel ownership for what has occurred during the meeting;. 2. .Know that they have an action plan for carrying through the decisions r~:ached at the meeting; 3. Have a positive attitude about what .has occurred at the meeting. Three Common Complaints Remember that the close of the meeting is the part most people remem- ber. For this .reason, each meeting leader will want to take this portion of the meeting very seriously. The three .most common com- plaints about meeting closes are: 1. The meting continues even though it is no longer necessary;. 2. No decisions are reached at the .meeting; 3: The meeting ends late. • Seven Key Points Nere are seven points to keep in mind: 1. Limit the discussion time for each subject.- 2. Be open to all alternatives. 3. Don't feel that you have to cover all. the issues. at one meeting. 4. Postpone unplanned topics until another time. 5. Clearly identify follow-up items in a post-meeting memoran- dum describing: who is to do what, when, where, how, with whom, and by when. 6. Use follow-up phone calls or written follow-up memoranda to see if help is needed for the completion of the project. 7. Have a backup plan ready for work that is not completed .correctly or on time.. ~'. 18 ~~iTR' S TIME CHECKLIST Ask yourself-the following questions before your meeting and review them once the meeting has ended.. All of your answers should be "yes."' es ~ ~1: Did I start the meeting at the scheduled time? 2. Did I review a posted agenda? 3. Did my agenda describe timeframes? 4. Did I manage to keep to the planned agenda timeframes? 5. Did I cut off non-productive conversation? 6: Was I flexible about time when necessary? 7. Did I end the meeting on time? 8. -Did I assign dates to follow up work? 9. Did I make sure we allowed sufficient time for: An effective introduction? An effective summary? te? i h i An a en appropr ng w evaluation of the meet 19 City of Richfield, Minnesota Study Session Letter No. 25 Agenda, May 4, 1992 Issue Statement: Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues. Background: Recent developments regarding the airport include the following: • MAC Draft Scoping Document on the Dual-Track Planning Process The MAC will prepare an. EIS on the impacts of alternatives for accommodating the long-term air transportation needs of the Twin Cities region. The alternatives include those being considered in the dual-track airport planning process. As an initial step in the environmental review process, the MAC prepared the First Phase Scoping Report. The draft scoping document identifies the process and evaluation factors to be used in preparation of the state and federal environmental documentation for the planning process. A copy of the draft report is attached. The MAC held public meetings on the draft scoping. document. Council Member Bill Bullock provided testimony on the report at a public meeting held on April 21, 1992 (copy of comments attached). The major issues raised by the City included: • No criteria has been established for review of the existing MSP economy if the airport is relocated. • Discussion regarding construction of a new airport must also include discussion of reuse of the MSP site. • Additional analysis is required regarding proper mitigation for the impact of airport expansion plans proposed in the MSP Long Term Comprehensive plan. • Results of the FAA capacity study at .MSP airport must be received prior to initiating an environmental review of the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan. • The issues addressed in the Mendelsohn study should be included as part of the environmental review process of the dual-track study. • The Environmental Quality Board should conduct the environmental review of the dual-track study. The MAC will be accepting written comments on the draft scoping document until June 4. City'staff will prepare and submit written comments identifying specific issues and concerns that -were not addressed in the draft scoping document. City staff and airport consultants will meet on May 7 to discuss the preparation of Richfield's written comments that .will be submitted to the MAC. • New Ford Town/Rich Acres Acquisition MAC staff met with the FAA officials in Washington, D.C. on April 1, 1992 regarding the proposed acquisition of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods. The FAA indicated they were familiar with the project but stated the FAA had no funds available in fiscal. year 1992. However, funds from the FAA may be available for fiscal year 1993 to initiate the buyout of the neighborhoods (the FAA fiscal year begins in October). Funding for the project would be phased in. The FAA will report to Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Executive Director, regarding the availability of funding. As of April 30, Finney has not received notification from the FAA. Finney stated that the MAC Full Commission has not yet indicated that they would authorize the use of funds from the FAA for the buyout of the two neighborhoods. The New Ford Town-Rich Acres Neighbors Advisory Committee continues to be active in pressing the. MAC to proceed in the buyout of the two neighborhoods. They are actively urging residents in the neighborhood to contact MAC Commissioners to solicit their support. Representatives from the committee plan to attend the MAC Planning & Environment Committee meeting on May 5. It is possible that .the buyout issue may be on the agenda at the meeting. • Legislative Update . (1) Noise Mitigation Funding. Representative Garcia and Senator Riveness introduced companion bills that would require MAC to spend certain increasing percentage minimums of its annual capital improvement budget for off-site noise mitigation. The proposed legislation would increase MAC efforts by using a portion of the new revenue source, Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's). PFC's generate an additional. $25 million per year of new money for MAC. The Legislature approved the noise mitigation bill during the 1992 session. The bill requires the MAC to allocate specified fund percentages from PFC revenues for noise mitigation projects in communities near the airport: 1993 20$ 1994 20$ 1995 35$ 1996 40$ A copy of H.F. 2269 is attached for further information. (2) Legislative Audit on Dual-Track Planning Process .Senator Phil Riveness, Vice-Chair of the Legislative Audit - Commission, asked the Commission to request the Office of the Legislative Auditor to conduct the review of the entire major airport planning process, and to report back on its effectiveness. On April 28, the Commission directed the Legislative Auditor to conduct the review .and prepare a report for submittal to the Commission on the airport planning process. The report is expected to be completed within the next five to six months. • Part 150 Program Implementation of the Part 150 Program has begun in Richfield for 30 homeowners selected for sound insulation projects in 1992. The City Council established block priorities according to the noise level and distance-from the runway centerline. Scheduling of future sound insulation projects will be dependent on FAA funding levels. Attached is a map indicating the properties eligible in 1992 for the program. The MAC has retained the Center for Energy and Urban Environment (CEDE) to administer the noise program in the five cities adjacent to MSP airport. On April 1 and April 9, CEDE conducted meetings for the Richfield property owners eligible for soundproofing projects in 1992. At these meetings, the residents were informed of the sound insulation program and scheduled appointments for an architect from CEDE to take measurements of their homes as part of the .acoustical analysis. The architects have conducted the acoustical analyses of all the properties and will meet again with the homeowners to discuss the specific sound insulation projects that will be utilized. On April 16, a general community workshop was held for all other Richfield property owners eligible for the sound insulation program in future years. At the meeting, City and MAC staff explained the noise insulation program and the approximate schedule for insulating homes. Attached are minutes from the meeting provided by CEDE staff. Currently, staff. are developing maps illustrating the projected yearly eligibility schedule for the estimated 93 blocks anticipated as eligible for the Part 150 Program. The projections will be based on current funding projections and current noise contours. Eligibility may change over time because of potential changes in funding levels and noise contour ..locations. The maps will be continually updated as policies change. • Draft EIS for Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22 The comment period deadline on the draft EIS was extended to May 1, 1992. The .initial draft EIS was. released on December 5, 1991. Steven Pflaum, City project consultant, sent a letter to Glen Orcutt, FAA Airport Districts Office, on April 16, 1992 requesting the FAA answer written questions from the City of Richfield regarding the draft EIS on the proposed extension of runway 4-22. The questions raised in the letter were prompted by the City's findings that the draft EIS fails to address serious operational problems with the runway extension project to reach its stated objectives. The FAA's answers to the questions will provide the City with information necessary to adequately prepare its comments on the draft EIS. A copy of the letter is attached. The City has not received a response to its questions from the FAA. Steve Pflaum and City staff will proceed to prepare written comments on the draft EIS for submittal on May 1, 1992, without the benefit of a response from the FAA. The City will request the opportunity to augment its written comments on the draft EIS -at a ater date after. receipt of_the requested answers from the FAA. • MSP Symposia Richfield and Bloomington staff and chamber of commerce representatives continue to develop plans for a seminar series on the future of MSP airport. Staff received confirmation from NSP that it would provide limited funding for the series. On Thursday, April 30, staff held a meeting with Sonia Cairns, co- owner of Marecek & Cairns, to .discuss how their company could help implement the series. The firm specializes in coordinating public affairs seminars, lecture series, annual meetings and other events. Recommended Motion: With this background information, the following recommendations are provided to address these issues: • MAC Draft $coping Document on Dual-Track Planning Process The City Council may submit input_to staff on issues and concerns to be included in the written comments submitted to the MAC on the draft scoping document. • New Ford Town/Rich Acres Acquisition Staff will continue to inform the Council about the progress of the proposed acquisition of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods. `• Legislative Update Staff will continue to update the Council on the status of the airport planning report the Office of the Legislative Auditor is preparing at the request of the Legislative Audit Commission. • FAA Part 150 Program Staff will continue to update the Council of the FAA Part 150 Program. • Draft EIS for Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22 Staff will continue to keep the Council informed of the. environmental review process for the proposed extension of runway 4-22. • MSP Symposia Staff will continue to inform the Council of plans for the seminar series on the future of MSP airport. Alternative Recommendationz A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the May 4, 1992 Study Session. Discussion/Decision Mode: These matters will be discussed at the .May 4, 1992 Study Session. y submitted, Jame{ Prosser City nager JDP:kb Attachments Comments on the First Phase Scoping .:Report - for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process Presented to the Metropolitan Airports Commission April 21, 1992 by BiIF Bullock My name is Bill Bullock. I am a Council Member for the City of Richfield. I thank the Metropolitan Airports Commission for providing us the opportunity to review and provide comments on the First Phase.. Scoping Report for the Duat Track Airport Planning Process. The City of Richfield fully supports the dual track planning process as mandated by the Legislature. We want to participate effectively and. actively m this planning process to address future. airport needs for the state. Our review of the draft scoping documents for the Metropolitan Airports Commission raises several. issues. First, relating to new airport site selection, no criteria has been established for review of the existing MSP economy, if the airport is relocated. A report from Martin O'Connell Associates of Lancaster, Pennsylvarna, reported to MAC in 1991 that MSP generates $2.6 billion into the economy. Further, it creates 84,200 jobs; 24,108 of those jobs .directly tied to the airport activity. The impact on the local area of relocating this economic center to another area should. be analyzed. Second, an integral part of the discussion regarding construction of a remote airport is the reuse of the MSP site. The proposed uses of the MSP site should be examined in order to assess the impact of the MSP reuse on the local area. Third, in regard to the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, additional analysis is required regarding proper mitigation for the impact of the airport on residential property. The scheduling for implementation of mitigation measures should also be addressed. Special attention should be paid to the need for mitigation of current and future MSP impacts prior to relocation and operation of a new airport. Fourth, the FAA has agreed to undertake a capacity study of the MSP airport. Results of that study should be received prior to initiating environmental review of the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan. The FAA report may generate additional options not previously considered by MAC. To initiate review prior to receipt of their report would be to prejudge the results and possibly eliminate practical consideration of the options generated by FAA. In order to better assess the impact of the dual track study on cities surrounding the airport, the communities of Richfield, Bloomington, Burnsville, Eden Prairie and Edina, cooperated in a joint study completed in 1990. That study, conducted by Mendelsohn and Associates Inc. and Walter E. Gilfillan and Associates, provides an outline for issues that should be addressed as part of the this process. We ask that the issues addressed in that report be included as part of the environmental review. A copy of that report will be forwarded to MAC for their review. Finally, the City of Richfield believes that the Environmental Quality Board is best suited to conduct this environmental review. Because of the nature of the proposal and the likely controversy regarding whatever option is chosen, the EQB is best suited to conduct-this analysis. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the .scoping .study. CHAPTER No. 551 H.F'. No. 2269 AN ACT 1 2 relating to metropolitan government; requiring the 3 metropolitan airports commission to budget for noise 4 mitigation; requiring a recommendation to the 5 legislature; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 6 ~ 473.661, subdivision 1, and by adding a subdivision. 7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 8 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 473.661; ;,, _.:-. •.. - 9 subdivision 1, is amended to read: f u~ll ii... i,i~~llllil!ilii4~I 10 Subdivision 1. The ee~nn-teaieaer commissioners shall, on or 11 before the first day of July of each year, prepare a detailed- 12 budget of the needs of the corporation for the next fiscal year, 13 specifying separately in said budget the amounts to be expended 14 for acquisition of property, construction, payments on bonded 15 indebtedness, if any, operation, noise mitigation, and .~ ~ 16 maintenance, respectively, subject only to such changes as the 17 commissioners may from time to time approve.. 18 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 473.661, is 19 amended by adding a subdivision to read: 20 Subd. 4. [NOISE MITIGATION.] (a) According to the schedule 21 in aragraph (b) of this subdivision, commission funds must be 22 dedicated (1) to supplement the implementation of corrective 23 land use management measures approved by .the Federal Aviation 24 Administration as part of~the commission's Federal Aviation 25 Regulations, part 150 noise compatibility program, and (2) for 26 soundproofing and accompanying air conditioning of residences, 1 CHAPTER No. 551 ' H: F. No. 2269 Iii { t{~{i II,'ii{ iVi ul~i{ICI{{; II"~ 1 schools, and other public buildings when there is a demonstrated 2 need because of aircraft noise, regardless of the location of 3 the building to be Soundproofed, or any combination of the three: 4 (b) The noise mitigation program described in paragraph (a) 5 of .this subdivision shall be funded by the commission from 6 whatever source of funds according to the following. schedule: 7 In 1993, an .amount equal to 20 percent of the passenger 8 facilities charges revenue amount budgeted. by the commission for 9 1993; 10 In 1994, an amount equal to 20 percent of the passenger 11 facilities charges revenue amount budgeted by the commission for 12 1994; 13 in 1995, an amount equal to 35 percent of the passenger 14 facilities charges revenue amount budgeted by the commission for 15 1995; and 16 In 1996, an amount equal to 40 percent of the passenger 17 facilities charges revenue amount budgeted by the commission for 18 1996. 19 (c) The commission's capital improvement projects, program, 20 and plan must reflect the requirements of this section. As part 21 of the commission's report to the legislature under section 22 473.621, subdivision la, the commission must provide a 23 description and the status of each noise mitigation project 24 implemented under this section. 25 (d) Within 60 days of submitting the commission's and the. 26 metropolitan council's report and recommendations on major 27 airport planning to the legislature as required by section 28 473.618, -the commission, with the assistance of its sound 29 abatement advisory committee, shall make a recommendation to the 30 legislature regarding appropriate funding levels for noise 31 mitigation at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and in 32 the neighboring communities. 33 Sec. 3. [APPLICATION.] 34 This act applies in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, 35 Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington. 2 ~~` {ia r'` ~' a © .~ ~~ i t3 ~ ~L l ~_ - --_- ' ~ r- .~ ar~d ~ . rte' ~ ~ s„d ~e~ ~~ ~~ ~~ sad ~~ ~~ ~~ k~ C ~ ~~ ~~ ~• ~~~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ u 2 DUAL-TRACK AIRPORT. PLANNING PROCESS. FIRST PHASE SLOPING REPORT FEDERAL- AVIATION ADMINISTRATION METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COr/IlVIISSION Prepared By Howard .Needles Tammen & Bergendoff 0 The dual-track airport planning process mandated by the 1989 Minnesota Legislature is designed to preserve the future major airport development options in the region. One track addresses ways to .provide the needed capacity and facilities at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The other track provides the needed capacity and facilities at a potential replacement airport in a designatedsearch area (Dakota County). CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT c 3 - ~.a - 9z Date Approved Nigel Fin ey, Deputy Executiv ' ector, Planning and Environment For additional information, contact the following persons: Mr. Nigel Finney Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040-28th Avenue South Minneapolis,. Minnnesota 55450 Telephone: (612) 726=8187 Mr. Glen OrcutC Federal.Aviation Administration 6020 -28th Avenue South, Suite 102 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 Telephone: (612) 725-4367 0 i FIItST PRASE SLOPING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS ~~ I. INTRODUCTION ........ ..:. ................ .....1 A. PURPOSE OF REPORT ................................1 B. METROPOLITAN AIRPORT PLANNING ACT OF 1989 .......... 1 C. COMPLETED AIRPORT PLANNING ACTIVITIES .............. 2 II. DUAL-TRACK PLAN1vnvG AND . ENVntoNMENTAI, REVIEW PROCESS ...................................s A. NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION ........................ 5 B. NEW AIRPORT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ................... 7 C. MSP LONG-TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ................ 8 D. STATE/FEDERAL EIS... ...........................9 III. ISSUES AND CONCERNS ............................. 11 A. NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION ....................... 11 ` B. MSP LONG-TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ............... 12 C. OVERALL DUAL-TRACK PROCESS ...................... 13 IV. PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ................ 14 A. AGENCIES... ...................................14 ' B. ADVISORY GROUPS ...........:....................14 C. PUBLIC .........................................15 ~ LIST OF FIGURES ' FIGURE 1 -DAKOTA SEARCH AREA ......................... 3 . FIGURE 2 -MSP LONG-TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ............ 4 FIGURE 3 -DUAL-TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS SUMMARY 16 I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of Report The purpose of the First Phase Scoping Report is two-fold: 1. to describe the dual-track planning process for the development of major airport alternatives to accommodate the long-term air transportation needs of the region, and 2. to identify the issues and concerns that should be addressed during the process. i n Air ort Plannin Act of 1989. B. Metropol to p g In 1989 the Minnesota Legislature enacted an airport planning law which includes the following provisions: • AVIATION PLAN. By February 1, 1990, the Metropolitan Council shall amend its aviation plan to include alternatives for major airport development in the metropolitan area for the next 30 years. The alternatives must include both airport improvements and enhancements of capacity at the existing airport Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP} and the location and development of a new major airport. • SEARCH AREA. By January 1, 1992, the Metropolitan Council shall designate a search -area for a new major airport. • MSP .PLAN. By January 1, 1992. (as amended), the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) shall adopt along-term comprehensive plan (LTCP) for MSP International Airport at its existing location to satisfy the air transportation needs fora 30-year planning period. • ITE SELF TI N MPREHEN IVE P A .Within four NEW AIIZT~IZT S years after the designation of the search area,, the MAC shall: - select a site for a new major airport within the search area, - prepare a comprehensive plan for the development of a new major airport at the selected site to satisfy the air transportation needs fora 30-year period, and - prepare and submit for administrative review the environmental documents required for site acquisition. -1- .~ • AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT (Airport Decision Documentl. Within 180 days .following completion of the comprehensive plans for MSP and a new major airport, the Metropolitan Council and MAC shall report to the legislature on the long-range planning and development of major airport facilities in the metropolitan area. The report must include recommendations of the agencies on major airport development for the 30-year period and on acquiring a site fora .new major airport, including financing. The report must be completed by July, 1996. C. Completed Airport Planning Activities • AVIATION PLAN. In January, 1990, the Metropolitan Council amended its Aviation Development Guide to include the air transportation needs to the year 2020 and the Dual-Track Major Airport Planning Strategy to meet those needs. ~ • SEARCH AREA DESIGNATJON. In December, 1991, the Metropolitan Council designated the Dakota Search Area in Dakota County for the planning and development of a new major airport. The Dakota Search Area measures 17 miles east to west and eight miles north to south and encompasses about 115 square miles or 74,600 acres. It includes- the cities of Coates, Vermillion and part of t Rosemount, and the townships of Empire, Vermillion, part of Nininger and most of Marshan (see Figure 1). The process utilized by the Council in designating the search area was approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board on October 18, 1990 as an alternative environmental review process -- and was reviewed by the FAA and determined consistent with FAA policies and regulations on December 26, 1990. • MSP LONG-TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. In November, 1991, the Commission adopted along-term comprehensive plan for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, incorporating a new 8,000-foot north-south runway on the west side of the airport and a new replacement west terminal (see Figure 2). -2- N C O. ~.. r ~ ' 4i W ; 4 ~ ,~ o ~_ -i. a ,, - ~, _ ~ .~ ~r ~e~o ~~s r ~ ~ ~:- fiw ~~ 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ f 4 ~~,jj r ~ G Y to j •• ,- _ r .-. E ~ ' ~ ~- ~ ~ i ~ b 4 ~ 1~ & ; O r , O tL ~/~ a f ~ _ _ _ t ~' I - ti J ~y , '~ r ~~ a s ' } J L - \ i 1 `L -.f- -3- C) a w t 1 '; ~.. ,, ~ ,..r ~~ ~, , -., .._: _ `~f ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ,,'~` .. ,, . ~` ti M l ;~ 4. t :~. w rY ..-.-' :r s': { J s~ t ~~ k,, ,p1 ~~ o ~ ~'tf i V+ ~. m l0 ~ `,i ,,,,r-Z «.~ ~~. .. / ~ .. ~ -.:. - -' .4- ~, ~\ _~,,. :~, -~~~~ l ~- -- N '~ v -_ u 1 a ~~ tt , ~ ~. ;~. 4 '~ •~ - ~ ~ ~` N t ~' a~~a ti v t t r J II. DUAL-TRACK PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The planning and environmental review process proposed to carry out the mandate of the legislature is described. in this section.. This alternative. environmental review process was approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on March 19, 1992. The process will be conducted. in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) orders, and all applicable Federal and State regulations and local ordinances. The following planning and environmental review process is summarized in Figure 3, page 16. A. New. Airport Site Selection Site selection within the Dakota Search Area will be accomplished in three phases: l) Site Identification, 2) Site Screening, and 3) Site Selection. The following set of criteria will be used to identify potential sites: • Runways, taxiways and other. airport facilities must be contained within the Search- Area boundary; • State safety zones and the 65 Ldn noise contour must not impact urban areas outside of the search area; • The 60 Ldn noise contour should not penetrate current or anticipated urban areas outside the search area; • Runway layouts must. maintain the full operational capability of the Conceptual Design -Study layout; • No airport facilities, excluding runways and taxiways should be developed over the Vermillion River; • Avoid flood plain areas where .possible; • Avoid siting the airport such that substantial portions of the airport cover areas of extensive wetlands; • U.S. Highway 52 realignment should be minimized; i i • Avoid overflights of obstructions or other hazards (e.g. the Pine Bend Refinery); -5- r~ u s • Align runways with the prevailing winds. Some of these criteria will be used as minimum requirements for any site, while others will be used as considerations in placing the Conceptual Design Study layout within the Search Area. ' During the site identification phase, a potential site will include a specific land area within a site boundary and a general airport layout. Once the potential sites have been identified, they will be screened using a series of criteria that could include the following, as applicable: • Physical Geography (Topography, Soils, Geology, Hydrology, Meteorology) • Adjustments to Conceptual Layout , • Airspace Interaction • Operational Requirements/Airfield Delay • Existing Roadway Infrastructure • Noise Impacts/Compatible Land Use ' • Section 4(f) Lands • Historical/Archaeological/Architectural/Cultural Impacts ~ • Biotic Communities • Wetlands • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Prime Farmland • .Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites • Water Quality ' • Air Quality • Threatened and Endangered Species ' Additional screening criteria could be added as required. After applying the screening criteria, three or four candidate sites will remain. To evaluate these remaining candidate sites, a final set of criteria will be used. These criteria will likely include all of the preceding listed criteria as well as costs, financial feasibility, and ground access travel times. ' • A in scop g report will be prepared by the MAC- that descnbes the identification of potential sites and the screening of the potential sites and airport layouts. The ' screening will result in the selection of three or four candidate sites proposed for detailed impact analysis in a subsequent environmental document. The scoping report will also identify the issues and impacts proposed for evaluation in the ' environmental document. The scoping report will be presented at public meetings and will be available for public and agency review and comment. -6- • Based on the comments to the Site/Layout Scoping Report, the Commission will prepare a Scoping Decision Document (SDD) which will specify the alternatives, issues and impact areas to be addressed in the environmental document. The SDD will also include responses to all timely and substantive comments on the . scoping report. • The Commission will prepare an Alternative Environmental Document {AED) for the new airport candidate site alternatives. The AED will be equivalent to a federal environmental impact statement (EIS) in level of analysis in that it will discuss the social, economic and. environmental impacts including regional and, community impacts, of the three or four candidate sites and layouts that remain. after screening in the scoping process. It will also discuss measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts. The AED differs from an EIS in that it will not discuss the impacts of the "no action" alternative and other alternatives to the development of a new airport. (The impacts of these alternatives will be presented in the final EIS that will be prepared later.) The purpose of the AED is to select the most appropriate site for a new airport (in the designated search area) based on environmental, operational, and cost considerations. • The AED will be distributed to interested arties and made available to the P public, and a public hearing(s) will be held. Prior to the public hearing(s), the site/layout preferred by the Commission will be identified for the purpose of • public review and comment. ' • Following the public hearing(s) and comment: period, the .Commission will respond to all timely and substantive comments, determine the adequacy of the AED, and select .the new airport site/layout for further study and analysis. B. New Airport Comprehensive Plan • The Commission. will /stud the selected site/la out in detail. and re are Y Y P P alternative development plans for the selected site/layout. The plans will address the needed facilities (terminal, .taxiways, parking,. ground transportation, etc.), costs, and financial plan for the 30-year planning period. If in detailing the. selected site/layout it is determined that a major shift of the airport layout is required outside of the site boundary, then the Commission will re-evaluate its decision and the revised site/layout will be used. • A scoping process .identical to the site selection process will be followed, including a scoping report, public meetings and an SDD. -7- 11 • The Commission will prepare an AED for the alternative development plans. The AED will be similar in scope to the Site/Layout .AED with more detailed analysis of layout-specific impacts. • The AED will be distributed to interested parties and made available to the public, and a public hearing(s) will be held. Prior to the public hearing(s), the concept and financial plan preferred by the Commission will be determined for the purpose of public review and comment. • Following the public hearing(s) and comment period, the Commission will respond to all timely and substantive comments, determine the adequacy of the AED, and select the new airport comprehensive plan for inclusion in the Draft EIS as one alternative for meeting the air transportation needs of the region in the future. C. MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan • Because of the dynamic .nature of the airline industry and the national/regional economy, the economic and air service assumptions and forecasts utilized in the preparation of the MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) will be reviewed and revised as necessary for the year 2020. The updated 2020 forecasts will be used for both the New Airport Comprehensive Plan and the MSP LTCP ' so that these alternatives are directly comparable. • The six alternative concepts- previously analyzed will be updated and. reassessed based on the following considerations: - aviation demand and air transportation needs ' -airport capacity limits and potential - facilities requirements - a plan for physical development, including financial estimates and a tentative t development schedule - airport operational characteristics -compatibility with metropolitan and local physical facility systems - environmental effects - safety - effects on neighboring communities • A scoping report will be prepared by the Commission that describes the updated ' evaluation of the concepts and those concepts and issues/concerns proposed for detailed impact analysis in. the AED. The scoping report will be presented at public meetings and will be available for public and agency review and comment. -8- • An SDD will be prepared, including responses to substantive. comments on the scoping report. • MAC will prepare an AED for the MSP LTCP that is comparable to the New Airport Comprehensive Plan AED. • The AED will be distributed to interested parties and a public hearing(s) held. Prior to the public hearing(s) the concept and financial plan preferred by the Commission will be determined for the purpose of public review and comment. • Following the public hearing(s) and comment period, thecommission-will respond to all timely and substantive comments, determine the adequacy of the AED, and select the concept to be included in the Draft EIS as one alternative for meeting .the air transportation needs of the region in the future. D. State/Federal EIS • Alternatives in addition to the new airport and MSP LTCP will be identified and ..evaluated for feasibility based on criteria similar to those used in the new airport and MSP scoping. • A scoping Document (SD) and Draft. scoping Decision Document (DSDD) for the EIS will be prepared. The DSDD will include the alternatives, issues and impact areas to be addressed in the EIS. The alternatives -will include the No Action (which will be defined at this point in the process), New. Airport Comprehensive Plan, and MSP LTCP.. The SD and DSDD will be presented at public meetings and will be available .for public/agency review and comment. • A Sco in Decision Document (SDD will be re aced and will include res nses P g ) P P Po to the substantive comments received` during the specified comment period. • Based on the SDD, the Commission and FAA will re are aState/Federal Draft P P EIS in accordance .with State and Federal law, rule, regulation and order. T' • The .Draft EIS will be distributed to interested. parties, made available to the public, and presented at a public hearing(s). A preferred alternative will not be determined at this-time. • A State Final EIS will be prepared and will include responses to the substantive comments received during the. specified comment period.. The State Final EIS wily be submitted to the EQB for review. M 9 1 i r i i i i i r i i i i i i i a i • The MAC and Metropolitan Council (MC) will prepare a joint report to the legislature with recommendations on the long-range planning and development of major .airport facilities in the metropolitan area, including financing and site acquisition, if appropriate, for a new airport. • The MAC/MC report will be reviewed and acted upon by the Minnesota legislature. • Based on the decision by the legislature on the preferred alternative and the EQB review of the State Final .EIS, the Federal Final EIS will be prepared by the Commission and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration in the Record of Decision. -10- III. ISSUES AND CONCERNS t The followin issues and concerns have thus far been identified. The are culled from ublic g Y p meetings and hearings from the Metropolitan Council Search Area Study, MAC public meetings and hearings from the MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan, and from other public forums on the Dual-Track Process. A. New Airport Site Selection 1. The runway and facilities (terminal,. taxiways, parking, military, etc.) requirements, and the major assumptions and forecasts that determine those requirements. he i l i 2 e . Impact on t reg ona a rspac system. 3. Impact on natural habitat and wildlife (including bird strikes). 4. Impact on surface water and groundwater (aquifers). 5. Impact on wetlands and floodplains. 6. Impact on agricultural land. ?. Noise impact. 8. Impact on solid and hazardous waste disposal. 9. Impact on historic, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources. 10. .Impact on induced/spin-off development. 11. Cost of land acquisition. 2 1 . Land. use compatibility. 13. Impact on public park and recreation land. 14. Impact on threatened and endangered species. 15. Social impacts. 16. Visual impacts (including light emissions). -11- _ 17. Impact on wild and scenic rivers. 18. Air quality impacts. 19. Uncertainty of new airport development for residents in and around the search area. 20. Provisions for utility and access infrastructures. to service the airport and ' secondary development areas. 21. Effect on regional development.. 22. Effect on property values in .the site area and adjacent areas. 23. Effect on lifestyle of Dakota County residents. B. MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan 1. The airport capacity needs and potential, facilities (terminal, taxiways, parking, etc.) required to meet 2020 aviation needs, and -the major assumptions and forecasts that determine these needs and requirements: ' 2. Noise impact. 3. Impact on local and metropolitan transportation systems. 4. Impact on cities and neighborhoods surrounding MSP. 5. Safety concerns. 6. Air quality impact. 7. Impact on Fort Snelling historic district and resources. 8. Impact on Minnesota River and Fort Snelling State Park. 9. Impact on Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and environs. 10. Impact on threatened and endangered species. I 1 1. Impact on migratory birds. I 12. Water quality impact. -12- 13. Impact on public park and recreation lands. C. Ove rall Dual-Track Process 1. The impact on long-range growth .and the orderly and economic development of the region. 2. Comparison of costs and financing of new airport and MSP expansion,.. including N costs of off-site infrastructure (e.g. transportation) to support the airport. 3. Airport user impact (e.g. accessibility to airport). 4. Air quality impact on the region. 5. Energy impact on the region. U C~ IV. PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT This section focuses on public and agency involvement in the planning process for the new major airport alternative. A. Agencies All affected local, state and federal agencies will. be contacted to determine the type and location of resources within their jurisdiction in the search area, and potential impacts and concerns about siting a new major airport. Direct coordination with the agencies will be maintained throughout (_ the process to ensure that the impacts and concerns are adequately addressed. B. Advisory Groups The following groups/committees will be involved in the process: 1. State Advisory Council.. The State Advisory Council (SAC) was established by the legislature to provide a forum at the state. level for education, discussion and advice to the. legislature on metropolitan airport planning. The SAC will receive interim briefings throughout the process on work in progress and on major ' decisions, and will review and comment to the legislature on the joint MAC/MC report to the legislature. The SAC has 23 members consisting of House and Senate legislators, federal, state and metropolitan agencies, representatives of the aviation industry and members of the public residing within and outside the metropolitan area. I 2. Contin ency Planning Group. This group monitors trends in technology, travel. habits and the economy, and makes an annual assessment of the need to proceed with any major improvements at the current airport or to acquire or develop a ' new major airport. The Contingency Planning Group comprises Metropolitan Council and MAC members, local officials and business representatives. ' 3. Interagency Committee. This is a joint committee of board members of MAC and MC mandated by the legislature to oversee the dual-track planning process. ' 4. Site Selection Task Force. This committee will advise the MAC on the planning process and. issues of policy that are raised. Membership will include representatives of federal, state and local agencies, elected officials, and representatives of the business community and airport users. -14- z ~ 5. Site Selection Technical Advisor~Committee. .This committee will review the ' accuracy and appropriateness of the technical studies and documents. • Membership will include representatives of affected state/federal transportation, planning and environmental agencies, local government staff and aviation industry representatives. C. Public The general public will. be kept informed through a series of public information meetings, newsletters, press conferences and news releases, as appropriate. They will have opportunities to comment both informally and formally. Formal input will be solicited atpublic hearings for ' the new airport site selection AED, the new .airport comprehensive plan AED., the MSP Long- Term Comprehensive Plan AED, .and the final Federal/State EIS. Informal input from the public can be provided at the scoping public meeting(s), meetings of the advisory groups, and ' at public meetings which will be scheduled throughout the process, including meetings before each- hearing, and at key points in the process. Contact persons at the MAC and/or its ' consultant will be identified to provide information and receive input Throughout the process. ' 15252/DualTnlc.Rep • -15- 1 ~~ CENTER FOR ENERGY AND THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT 5101st Avenue Norfh, Suite 400 ^ Minneapolis, MN 55403-1609 ^ (612) 348-6829 ^ Fax: (612) 348-9335 Richfield Community Meeting on the Part .150 Sound Insulation Program Thursday, April 16,1992 Richfield City Hall 7:00 PM Byron Wallace, Community Development Director for the City of Richfield welcomed the group and 'introduced Colin Campbell, the Sound Insulation Program's Program Manager, and. Steve Vechhi, the Metropolitan Airports Commission's Manager Part 150 Program. Steve Vecchi indicated that the Sound Insulation Program in Richfield is beginning with 30 homes in 199.2. Colin Campbell from the Center for Energy and the Urban Environment '(CEUE) explained that the MAC has contracted with CEUE to administer the Sound Insulation Program. The Sound Insulation Program Process Is: 1. The 5 impacted cities (Richfield, Bloomington, Minneapolis, Eagan, and Mendota Heights) identify homes for insulation based on: LDN measurements as determined by the FAA; proximity to runway centerlines; and available FUNDING. (30 homes were identified by the City of Richfield for insulation ~in 1992) 2. Participating homeowners are invited to a workshop at the MAC sound insulated demonstration house. (These were conducted on 4/1 and 4/9 for .the 30 Richfield residents) 3. Appointments are scheduled for CEUE architect's to meet with individual owners and~take house measurements and photographs: A mechanical. engineer appointment is scheduled if air conditioning is to be installed. 4. The architects conduct an acoustical analysis of the house. 5. A second appointment involves the homeowner and architect deciding what work will be done to achieve FAA levels of sound reduction. A participant agreement will be signed with MAC at this point. 6. The window manufacturer rep takes window measurements of each house, as the .fit of acoustical windows is critical. 7. Construction begins and should be complete in 5 - 10 days in each house. 8. Final inspections are conducted by CEUE and the Homeowner. Ventilation tests are .conducted to ensure good indoor air quality. After the presentation on the Sound Insulation Program Process a question and answer session took place.. Q. What is "LDN"? A. The level of day night noise measured in a 24 hour period. It includes factors such as: ,~ of flights overhead; ,# of landings; # of take-offs; what stage aircraft is overhead; and times of day of flights. The FAA conducts. the measurements and develops the LDN contour map. (see enclosure) Q. When will our homes be insulated? A. The first 30 homes to be insulated in 1992 have been identified by the City of Richfield. (see map enclosed) Other homes will be identified based on proximity to the runway centerline and availability of funds. Due to the question of availabity of funding a determination of which blocks are next has not been made. Q. Do all walls need finishing? A. Exterior walls will be modified if need is determined and owner agrees. Q. My rooms are so small if you increase them 3 - 5" I'll have to go into my bedroom sideways. What do you do about this? A. Again, only exterior walls are modified, and then the recommended treatment will probably be adding a sheet of 5/8" gypsum board. However, it is your house and your choice of options. Q. What is the "Avigational Release"? A. See BLUE handout "Noise Info" enclosed. Q. Does the release transfer to next owner? A. No, This is a release not an easement therefore it is not transferred to new owner when house is sold. Q. What's going on with the "buyout" of New Ford Town and Rich Acres? A. A final determination has not been made. Q. What about the extra money the legislature wants MAC to-spend on Sound Insulation? A. City Manager Jim Prosser could not attend this meeting because he was at the State Capital following this bill. MAC hopes to insulate 50-80 homes a month in the 5 impacted cities once the program is up and running. Richfield's portion is approximately 20% of the funds. Q. Will my property taxes. increase if I have my house soundproofed? A. Most of the work done is considered repair and maintenance, therefore-the valuation of the. home should not change due to the sound insulation work. However, central air conditioning usually increases the valuation of a homes. Q. Isn't $25,000 an awful lot to spend on insulating these homes? A. $25,000 is the cap, the most that would be spent on any one house. Every house is different and will require different modifications. We expect the average expense to be $.20,000 on houses closest to the airport. Q. What would they do to my ceilings? A. In a few cases gypsum board may be adhered to existing ceiling, the mass of the sheetrock is very effective in sound proofing. It is more likely the extra layer would be applied to walls. Q. Would you insulate my attic? A. Our architects will-determine how much insulation you have and if further insulation would be recommended. Q. When is this really going to start? A. The first 30 owners have already attended the workshops, the architects have visited with several owners, and' the acoustical analysis of these homes is underway. Actual construction is scheduled to begin by mid-September. The above are notes from the meeting you were unable to attend. The meeting began at 7pm and ended about 8:45. Approximatley 70 people attended. .All those attending were invited to visit the demonstration home AND SO ARE YOU. I hope these notes plus the enclosed information address most if not all of your questions. Call me if you have any other questions or concerns. Sincerely, ~~~~~ Kathy Laren Program Coordinator 348-2580 - 75 STATE STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 617/345-5000 2029 CENTURY PARK EAST LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 2131277.4110 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 305/358-3500 ~~~ RE~~~`~Ed APR ~ Q Tgg2 ~~D MCDEI~.MOTT, WILL Sc EMEKY A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2Z7 WEST MONROE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606-5096 312/372-2000 CLIENT/ATTORNEY RECEPTION -44TH FLOOR MAIL/MESSENGER RECEPTION - 31ST FLOOR FACSIMILE 312/984-2099 TELEX 253565, 210079 CABLE MILAM 1301 DOVE STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 714/851.0633 1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036 212176 8-5400 1850 K STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 202/887-8000 DELIVERED BY FEDERAL EXPRESS April 16, 1992 Mr. Glen Orcutt Airport Districts Office Federal Aviation Administration 6020 28th Avenue South Room 102 _ _ _ _ .. _. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 Re: Questions for MSP ATC Regarding Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22 ar Mr . Orcutt : - ~_~- -~~----- STEVEN F. PFLAUM 312/984.3641 I am writing in response to the FAA's offer to answer written questions from the City of Richfield regarding the proposed extension of Runway 4-22 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The FAA suggested this format in lieu of the interviews requested in my letters to Thomas Peterson and Bruce W«goner dated January 15, 192. Richfield i~ grateful for this opportunity to gather information critical to the preparation of its comments on the Draft EIS for the proposed project (which comments, we now understand, are due on May 1, 1992). Richfield's questions are prompted by, and are intended to assess the accuracy of, our belief that the Draft EIS fails to address serious operational problems that would interfere with the ability of the runway extension project to achieve its primary stated objective of increasing the use of the Runway Use System (RUS) at MSP. (If the project will not operate in the manner depicted in the Draft EIS, then the environmental analysis will likewise be skewed.)- The questions are intended to be thought- provoking, but not adversarial. We recognize that the FAA will keep an open mind about the merits of the project until the Mr. Glen Orcutt Airport Districts Office. Federal Aviation Administration April 16, 1992 Page 2 environmental review process is completed. In addition to enabling Richfield to prepare its comments on the Draft EIS, we hope that the questions and the information that they evoke will lead the FAA to rigorously reexamine the efficacy of the project. Since we understand that the written questions and answers are intended to be a substitute for the opportunity to speak with Messrs. Peterson and Wagoner, we have limited our questions to those that we wanted to discuss with those gentlemen. Because our questions require firsthand knowledge of ATC operations at MSP, we strongly believe that Messrs. Peterson and Wagoner have uniquely valuable-insights and knowledge regarding the subject of our inquiries. We urge you to consult with them in preparing your responses. QUESTIONS Each of the following questions relates to the operation of the extended Runway 4-22 with the Q Taxiway in use (sponsor's choice, build alternative lAj: 1. Hold Short Restrictions a. Will there be any hold short restrictions for arrivals on Runway 29L (or any other runwayj? If so, what are the nature of those restrictions? b. What is the percentage of arrivals that are estimated will not accept the hold short restrictions? Does that estimate consider heavy jets? Does that estimate consider adverse weather conditions, including runways other than clear and dry? What is the source of the information used in preparing that estimate? 2. Jet Blast Issues a. What are the anticipated effects of jet blast from design group IV and V aircraft using the extended Runway 22/Taxiway Q configuration brake release point on: (1) general aviation aircraft crossing Runway 22 on Taxiway E; and (2) general aviation and air carrier aircraft operating on Runway 29R? b. Will the brake release point on the extended Runway 22/Taxiway Q configuration be moved southwest on Runway 22 to compensate for jet blast, and if so, how far? Mr. Glen Orcutt Airport Districts Office Federal Aviation Administration April 16, 1992 Page 3 3. Taxiway O Issues a. How many aircraft will Taxiway Q accept at one time? What type of aircraft were used in arriving at this estimate? b. What are the provisions, if any, for additional queuing when Taxiway Q is full? Will gate hold be required in the tower cab to regulate Runway 22/Taxiway Q operations due to ground congestion? c. What are the percentages of heavy and non-heavy jets, respectively, that are expected to request using the full. length of extended Runway 22 for departures? What is the source of the information used in arriving at that estimate (ALPA, ATA, NWA, MAC, other airlines, etc.)? d. What will be the procedure, with respect to aircraft holding on Taxiway Q, for heavy and non-heavy jet departures using the full length of extended Runway 22? To what extent would Taxiway Q have to be emptied or kept vacant to accommodate those departures, and where would the aircraft go that are emptied from or kept off of Taxiway Q? e. What is the expected taxi routing of Runway 29R arrivals with gate assignments on the south side of the terminal? Will arriving aircraft-cross Runway 22 at Taxiway E, or at T and H? f. To what extent will the ground traffic at the AAL jetbridge, the green concourse chokepoint, the "alley," and the one-way traffic at the tunnel/rid conccurse block taxi routes when Taxiway Q is used? 4. Anticipated Level of Operations a. What are the maximum runway rates for Runways 29L, 29R, and 22, with respect to both arrivals and departures, for peak inbound and outbound hours? b. .What are the typical runway rates for Runways 29L, 29R, and 22, with respect to both arrivals and departures, in VFR, marginal VFR, and IFR conditions? c. How many hours per day, stating specific times, can the extended Runway 22/Taxiway Q configuration be used, Mr. Glen Orcutt Airport Districts Office Federal Aviation Administration April 16, 1992 Page 4 with respect to average weekday operations during peak month 1992 and peak month 2000, and average weekend operations during peak month 1992 and peak month 2000? What overall percentage of time does the FAA anticipate the Runway 22/Taxiway Q configuration will be used on an annual basis? d. Were the runway rates and hours of operation described in the answers to Questions 4(a)-(c), above, formulated with specific consideration of the limitations on the use of the extended Runway 22/Taxiway Q configuration associated with: (1) The limited compliance that can be expected with hold short restrictions for arrivals on Runway 29L, as stated in the response to Question 1(b), and the resulting delays associated with clearing taxibacks across Runway 22? (2) The effect of jet blast from design group IV and V aircraft at the extended Runway 22/Taxiway Q configuration brake release point, as stated in the response to Question 2(a)? (3) The time required for departures on Runway 22 to taxi from Taxiway Q to the brake release point on Runway 22, as stated in the response to Question 2 (b) (4) The limited capacity of Taxiway Q to hold aircraft, as stated in the response to Question 3(a)? (5) The delays associated with additional q~.ze~:ing or gate holds required when Taxiway Q is full, as stated in the response to Question 3(b)? (6) The procedures required to accommodate aircraft that request the full length of Runway 22 for departures, as stated in the response to Questions 3 (c) & (d) ? (7) The crossings of Runway 22, on taxiback to gate assignments on the south side of the terminal, of aircraft arriving on Runway 29R, as stated in the response to Question 3(e)? Mr. Glen Orcutt Airport Districts Office Federal Aviation Administration April 16, 1992 Page 5 (8) The groundside congestion that use of Taxiway Q will produce at the AAL jetbridge, the green concourse chokepoint, the "alley," and the one-way traffic at the tunnel/red concourse, as stated in the response to Question 3(f)? (9) Adverse weather conditions, including runways other than clear and dry, visibility greater than one mile but less than three, marginal VFR operations, and wind conditions that will not allow hold short restrictions to be applied or that otherwise interfere with operation of the RUS? e. What are the estimated delays, on a daily, hourly, and annual basis during 1992 and 2000, associated. with the operational limitations on the extended Runway 22/Taxiway Q configuration, including but not limited to those described in Questions 4(d)(1)-(9)? f. Has the FAA committed, or will it commit, to the runway rates and hours of operation described in the answers to Questions 4(a)-(c), above? What is or will be the form of any such commitment, and to what extent and for what reasons is the commitment subject to change? 5. Other Operational Issues a. What will be the procedure for jet arrivals on Runway 22 when Taxiway Q is occupied? b. To what extent will the clear zone trapezoid have an adverse impact on Runway 4 operations in instrument weather? c. To what extent will the clear zone trapezoid have an adverse impact on Taxiway "O" access to the SW cargo area? d. What will be the obstruction clearance criteria for engine-out departures with respect to the FirstStar Metro Bank southwest of Cedar Avenue and Interstate 494? e. Under what circumstances will the full length of Runway 4 not be available for departures? Mr. Glen Orcutt Airport Districts Office Federal Aviation Administration April 16, 1992 Page 6 6. Consideration of Required Waivers and Restrictions a. Describe all FAA waivers. and restrictions required to operate the proposed project. Will there be any waivers or restrictions relating to: (i) hold short procedures; (2) taxiway-runway centerline spacing; (3) heavy jet departures on Runway 22 with Taxiway Q occupied; (4) engine-out obstacle climb clearance; (5) wake turbulence brake release; (6) wing tip clearances around Taxiway Q and concourse ends; (7) arrivals on Runway 22 with Taxiway Q occupied; (8) conflict between the displaced threshold on Runway 4 and the clear zone for instrument weather operations; and {9) AF ILS placement constraints? b. Describe all concerns expressed, and issues raised, by Flight Standards, Airways Facilities, Air Traffic, and Airports Office regarding necessary waivers or restrictions, or operational problems or constraints, associated with the proposed project. c. Describe all concerns expressed, and issues raised, by MAC, NWA, other airlines, MASAC, military, and general aviation users regarding necessary waivers or restrictions, or operational problems or constraints, associated with the proposed project. Thank you very much for responding to these questions. Please let me know if any of the questions require clarification. Sincerely, teven P aum SFP:gr cc: Charles Prock, Esq. (B Federal Express) Mr. James D. Prosser Mr. Robert Collette Charles LeFevere, Esq. \31805\010\COR\50CORSFP.005 APR 21 '92 1102 WUSTENBERG_CONSU~il~~~ ~E/tltlv`f~'' t~5 r ~~+"~ / , ! /rf'Z .~ ~~ ~~ J 0 thousands spent to lure museum Mayor says he.sees few options besides Srruthsonian branch for Stapleton frt. OBSTACLE SnapA that runs from ,~anuary to • Gag in mi- may, The con nority workers tract will be re- couid delays evaluated when s~rCort/22 it expires, Vtrsbb said. Snapp was hired by farmer Mayor Federico Pefta and collected $80,000 for wont on the Smithso- nian project in 1991. Councilman Ted Hacka-orth criticized the Snapp deal as a waste in pursuit of a long snot. "If the critics can come up with a be*.*.er idea, I'm certainly willing to listen," Webb said. "I have not heard any." Errol Stevens, deputy aviation director in charge of the redevel- opment, said on Monday he ~ex pests some sort of marketing plan "by midsummer." Haynes said a conceptual plan she and others developed for Pefia supplies a good guide to develop- ment. but ."translating that into some *eal plans is going t~o.~ake_. _ another effort." Tae councilwoman added that city officials don't expect a major player to move into Stapleton the day alter it closes -- "certainly not the Smithsonian." Congress is considering a na- tionwide competition far a Smith sonian braACh. The museum's re- gents oppose moving any annex outside the Washington area. Tn addition, observers say the national contest wi11 only stiffen Denver's competition. And the closures of military bases add even more competitors. Haynes said options include edu- cational facilities, anon-Smithsoni- an t_*ansportation or cultural mu- seumand industrial development. A non-profit foundation called the Stapleton Pedevelopment Foundation is trying to raise mon- ey to buy the site and develop Less intensive uses that would not com- pete with more conventional proj- eCLS. By Brian Weber Rocky Mou~ttrin News Staff Writer Mayor Welllingtoh Webb on Tuesday defended spending nearly $20,000 a month to lobby far an aviation museum because it repre- . seats the city's only option to re- develop Stapleton International Airport. "i wish we had other options at this point," Wehb -said of Staple- ton, which will close whey the new airport opens in the fall of 1993. "There have not been aa~- others beatin own a oor saying we ve some ,ewe want to put on ~M. that x.700 acres." h-~ertiy over the huge tract iS unsettling to residents of northeast Deaver. "Paople are worried," said Councilwoman nappy Haynes, who represents the area. "They haven't heard a lot and they're worried.,' Webb called the redevelopment of Stapleton "the second largest cha}lenge after competing the air- port," but he has no firm plans except to pursue the Smithsonian museum annex The mayor approved a $97,540 lobbying deal with consultant':~Sick ~¢_ Lv Q W Z f 9! ~J';A '~~~e:fia~~ ~; 1" t _:~~ ~~.~~~=1st S ~<; ~. .. is~ s ; 1.: Y,~~~~~t~II~e~ ~~ ~& f,.,: -~~~`~~ n ~K tit' :~~. ~ ,, F t4tayo~1i~u~ ~l1 ,.~ _ W_ d J W W G _ ~ E o U C 0 0._ ~_~~~ ~~ g$~~~ ~o~ g8~a 8~ n~ 8~ N yN (}j OOOV~ pp <NON~~u. fore `F~~e? Leas' t mega-mall is thinner t ~ expected sy ANN 1KE~,L With under four months to go open- ing, the leasing clip is falling, short o at the Mall of Americas Leasing officials at the 2.6 million- square-foot Bloorru mall. concede that they haven't a~ttnu~ many international retailers as planned. Such tenants .are im- portant because they could draw the type of national traffic needed to make the mall a success. D~~flcatfon att~mp~s ,. O1 594 345 vo6sd voted to union out keep union Source: Nutgp~ Libor Refatbns &,~n't Meludr unbn ocHotty b~ pubUc mtw or die rntlrood and wr~las tnduahia. ~~'" ~ ~- ~ r~~ons win Meanwhile, the mall is still shq of the 400- specialty tenants to fill the space. In -the past. year acing offcials have added app 50 tenants arm ...now are predicting n with 70 percent xrupancy. Except for partment store anchors Nordstro 's and Bloomingdale's, those ave signed make for a tenant mix si to that at other Twin Cities malls, sy s>ETSY wEEnvBExGER Union orgarming activity is on the up- swing in the seven-county metro area, but labor is failing to win where it counts most: at the larger companies. Figures obtained from the National La- bor Relations Board (NLRB) show that over the past two years, unions in the re- gion_have generally failed in their attempt Sources: Northwest maybe headed for financial straits By DALE RURSCHNER The t company of Northwest Airlines Inc. negative equity and had tapped nearly 40 percent of its X600 million revob- ing credit line before entering its toughest period this year, the fast quarter. Those facts were revealed by analysts who attended a meeting earlier this month with Northwest officials in Paris as weD as by the E -based airline compares r+eoettt filings with various federal and state agencies. The reports abo revealed that the airline ~_is continuing toe~e hence lasses in ib most acrative region, the Pacific, and that it is losing mrn~ey on operations, before adjust- ments. In addition, Northwest's parent, NWA Inc., has more than doubled its projected loss for 1992 to ~I42 million, the reports in- dicate. At year-end 1991, NWA's total eq- uity stood at n five 327 miIlion, aceorchng to Philip Bagga~ey, senior vice president in the corporate-finance debt rating division ~ Standard & Poor s Corp., New York To some former Northwest employees and industry observers, the facts revealed in the reports indicate that the financial oondi- tions at Northwest, the primary operating subsidiary of NWA, may be lmaded for dire straits. With large losses looming, an ex- hausted pply, dep~lefequity, and ncreadng r~r~g costs, any would-~A inve~ors wntild have a lot to consider before buying a dedra in the airline company, the sources said. "T'he worst thing is that this is the time ~COnZ'if{tlCd On battles, la too rkers at large employers: wort The unio have been successful at - toda picking up mem hip at small Minne- B~ sofa companies, whe wages and benefits Atto generally are lower than larger corpora- labo bons, the NLRB figures s ~ emp "The activity defirritely has i din Ausi the last year and a half," said Min lis stay attorney Steve Gordon, who's represen "1 unions in Minnesota for 20 years. "The INSIDE THIS ISSUE NORWEST CORP. maq lose out to Met- ropolitan Financial Corp. is a bid to ac- quue the troubled First Federal Savings Bank of South Dakota ...............................~ I 7 nvn~ ~'~ Everybody's Business ........................................5 Buaiaess Pulse ............. ......................................7 CityBusiaess I.iqt ........ ......................................8 The Editorisl Page ....... ......................................9 The Business of Sports ....................................20 On the Move ................ ....................................li For the Record ............. .......................:............17 Corporate Capsule ...... ....................................ZO Taking Stock ............... ....................................Z2 Business Marketplace .......:.............................24 ** ~~~S1P~tAt. POCtJ~ PAG$ t1. By We shy coy din sopn~ clo n ~n lea, N N O~ .d a a ,,~ VJ ~~ ~~ ~~ R ~ vi ~ bA C O y ~ ~c ~ ~ '7 O 7 ."gyp. ~ ~ ~ ~•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~ ~ . ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ U 3 ~ . ~ ~ 4: ~ o O ~ cti 1COO~ ~ ~ ~ ~" C ~ yCyC~ ~ ~-' d ~ y y 4 y -~ C ~~ ^~' U ~~-+ ry. Q.u G ^ O oo ~.' ~ ~i u CoZ.~ ~ c:~c ~ x ~ r ~~ :C 7L :E O C 1 O ~ V ~j 4) C.: - h ~ ~ ^Y O O Y O 40 ~' O G.~ ~ ~ ~ O .7 O U '~^oa' o. ca-~3 ~.~ 3v'? a>~bioo....=~ ~=~C~° ~o ~y r .5 ..i .G cE G O" ~ ¢, y a z ~ y v ~ ~ E" ~ O C ~ ~ ~ r y ~ ~ ~ ~~' 7 ~ ~ O fl„^...c-». lac c:~.y~~.o~,^_3cgc°cc°-~o.~` y y~i"c-v°oa a~ ~'o ~ ~ ~ V ~ C ~ y ~J cC X ~ G.,O p 'L cC in ~.. f' y y0 i. ~ O C O G. c2y y ~y~~a ~'y a~ o `off c ~~ ^z ~~ ~ 3 3 ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ 7~•= y4- .,>~ ~ V ~ o ~ o ~ y ~~ '~ ~ ~ ^ .=G G ~ .~ ~ ~ '~,~` Ski ~ a F-. ~i J ~ '~'Ci ~'~.,. ^~'~ ~ ~ ty ~ " N ~ y ~ y ~ .7. U o b ~~ •c e ~ ~.° ~.~ g-o ~ >~ c a E'~-~ ~ :e b ~ J ~ c,~~ •~~ y'~ c.c ~~~ ~ c Q„ ~.- cc ~- o ~ c o o .y +- y di c y a~ c y cu. '_'°cbc~No=~oa~°~~52c~^Q~a;>,o _o c~~•~o~~~~y~~ 3~~~~c.3~•5a~3~v.~~~c~3~~~~ac3~E~°_'-~-o~ ~ rcy•~R~°c.T~~~ o ° ec'o ~ ° I ;;'~ o o ~3 ~ ~Ur ~ y•- =''~.~ ~~~ v•~ ~ ~~c~ia ~ac.u~~a.o ~a z ~ + i+ ~Q ~ ~ ~ C 'b z G ~ ~~ i ~ ~ O = C) "^J~ ^ D .. iH ~ 69 r.~.i ~ v ~ J y O • fA ~ • (C~1~ O • c ° ao u°'.~ ~o~ uz~.~F•~ ° 3 ~ u c~ ° °~'`o - o.S o oU cr. 6~ ~ ,C ~ ~ ~ ~" ,. o °~ ~. o ~~i+ ~ r+ -X ~ a U ~ 'p O L ~ C" ~ C.a ~ C ~bq a~ c ~~~~ ~~oa° ~~~E a ~ c :; '~vyo CC Vl ~ h oho ii ~i+i • W V W ~vo o~ . i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n` ~ W ~~ O ~i C/~ ~ ~ w~ '~! ~ ~~ C G) '_' .v, O O L v ~.. [~ -' bG i 'y .. s0. C .- O O O Q' o v~ .~" O i > O p ~ i^_ ~ ~ G C C ~ ~ C U ~ O ~_ ~ '~ •bC~ 'C C O E `c ~' E o o~ T ° c. ? ca '- • ~= s. ce ° is ~ C..*~ v y ... a?~3a>iy'n d~'~,3zo~~~•°~~s~y~"cCao =~~oc~ b0 C y ._ s., f.. ~ _ ~C "d G C _ _ `~ ~+ C ~ ~ T.~3 ~".. ~ j ~ c~ O .C ~ y O 5 O cVC y O "" z .. " f/9 .p. O ,~ " ',~] ~ C C ,~ ~ ~ O y G' i .L y .0 > L'' ~- LC ~ ~ o C a o .'~ a~ `"''$ ~ c ~ = axi ~ '~ U U ~ a~ c o y o ~ ~ 3 ~ a~ ~ y c ° a~i ~ _ ~ y ~+ o ~ ~`y ~-~^ ~ x~F oa o.~ ~ o E~ °'~ ~ ~~E= ~ ~ c mac"-, o 2~H-o?~°poF• e=c'vc'~z~,.oeh1~~'°~au~'oun4 c 5 y ^o ~ 'cca ~ .: 3 o c. ° c~° b `~ '3- ,°. ~° '60: ~ cq .~ A ~ a`i ~ F. . ._ O ~ y m ~'.ti F C i SOi •i. i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '^ ~ c c Q •P• w o y ,~ •c ~ ~, ~., .X ~ y ~ ,~ ~ a) of C % ~. y ~ GL ro ~' ~ ~3F°-''°6 v~°a~c `cc~~y ~y 3~cc ~ ~ o ~c 3~" ~ y 3 o c~ ~ y u 3~ ++ z E 1+ +y O ~ a+ ~jo ~4 sa y ~ <.7 ~ ~ L O5• ^ ~.. ~ ~ ~ G.. W o o O Q CE b4 c,.., _ b~-~o Ci > ._ O tTr y ~ ~ O ~ L Y ~ C ~ ~~ ~ •~ ~y G W .~ ~ ~ y c.~ ~•~ c ~ ~.g ° y ~ ~ ~~~ 3 ~i a o o^~ u o E ce cwF " a •- ~ „a o a. ~e a~ o 'C ;~ c ~ U 'vim c ~ - ~ ~ ~ e u.5 3--~ ~ ~' °~o b~ ~ y ac y o ~ ~. a: U ~ y~! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ y Q7 z U '~ :E ``" .. t0. w S-L >~~. O ° Q) ~ {~ ~ Fri >1 .~.~ .~~4"' 0 0 a_+ Z-o~v>,Q,,,a~aciF"co,~,~~aci~~.ya~H ~cc`, cC V fi ~ 6~. O > U CA o ~ `~ 'd ~ ~ L a, ~~aQ•~E°E~~'aS~`c~~~...o3a¢Ee~euo a w a H _~ ~~~ ~GO<~~ w $85-9 ~ e ?~o~ a~a~ ~~ ~~ ~. s~ppQ~ N ~~ g ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 24 Agenda May 4, 1992 Issue Statement• Discussion concerning a request to delete the minimum square footage requirement and minimum market value requirement in the ordinance for on-sale liquor licensed establishments. Background: On April 13, 1992, Paul L. Knudson submitted a letter to the City Manager requesting that the minimum square footage requirements and minimum market value requirements set forth in the liquor ordinance be changed as follows: • Delete the requirement for a minimum square footage of 4,000. The applicant states this area of concern should be left to building and health code based on the number of seats proposed. • Delete the requirement that property have a minimum market value of 5600,000. The applicant states a restaurant that meets building and health code requirements and is located in a properly designated area should be allowable. Financial responsibility is addressed by the State Dram Shop. Minnesota Statute 340A.509 states that "a local authority may impose further restrictions and regulations on the sale and possession of alcoholic beverages within its limits." Minnesota Statute 340A.101 subd. 25 defines $ restaurant in a second class city as one where a restaurant is an establishment, other than a hotel, under the control of a single proprietor or manager, where meals are regularly served at tables to the general public, and having a capacity of at least 30 seats for guests. The governing body of a second class city may also prescribe a higher minimum number of seats. The original intent of the liquor ordinance, which includes these requirements (size, seats and value), appears directly related to community standards. This standard discourages small bar-type. restaurants. The City clearly has the' ability to add such limitations. The applicant states his intentions to open a high class, small restaurant. It will be difficult to distinguish between and control high class restaurants serving liquor from small bar-type restaurants which the City wants to discourage if the amendments are adopted. Finally, it should be noted that the applicant and the City have previously resolved the law suit through a settlement. That law suit, initiated by Mr. Knudson, related to denial of a liquor license. The law suit requires the City to hold a liquor license open for Mr. Knudson, but does not require the changes requested. A copy of the settlement provision is attached. Recommended Motion: Discuss the request for amendment and direct staff regarding changes, if any. Alternative Recommendation:, Defer the discussion to a future Study Session. Discussion/Decision Mode: This is presented for Council discussion on May 4, 1992. submitted, Ja~~~ D. Prosser Ci yyJJ Manager JDP:cak Attachment ~~CE~~J~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ APR~ra ~_J/ A/~ TO d R:iCFJFIL'•.LIa CJ;"i`~ COUNC~CI. X700 PORTLANr.) A~~; a0 R~CFiFIR"Ian, r~N 55423~25~~ C/~0 C~T~ r~ANA~z~R FROr~ ~ PAUL L KNUi~SON €34~? 7 IairCFNT AVi3 r30 # X15 BROOKL~ZN PARK, MN 55445 SLTI3JFC`~o L:IQAOR I.~ICFNSF OR177NANCF Ri~/J•S_T.ON. !i //F3 ~~~~ of _ ..,.,:... /~~ _ - Cle~~ ~ Llzi. sir'`, PLEASE CfONS~I~FR TIiTJ FOLLOY~7INC Cii~iNGF~S fir;! TEIE ON SAL R L IQC;QR I,TCis'NS~; OI2T7INANCF . 1. I?FLS~~'~' THL' Ri?QulRiai~~RNT FOF2 A r'1~r3Ir~UM SQiJARF FOOTAGE, OF 4000 TY€:IS AREA OF CONCERN SHOiJLD SF LFFa' `.T'O BLTJ_LD~NC ANTS I3FALTIi COT~I~ASEI) ON TIIia NiJMI3F,R OF SEATS PROPOSFT) 2. i~FLFTE RFGIJ~RF~IFNT `.BRAT PROPr~Ii'J'~ IiAVi~, r'I~N:Ir~I;N! r'lARKF,~' VALLTF OF X600 ~ 000.. A R~FSTALIRAN`J' Ti~iA?' r~1FIaTS kiiJ~I,~~NC AN1D IiiaALTIi C~r)ia' Ri''A~uTRF-- r'IF~TTS ~Nla TS I~OCATFI) I:N A PROPFRI,Y I)FS~GNAT:iD AREA SIi0iJLD LAS ALLOTn7~'1I3T_,F. F.T~.NANCYAL RI;SPONSIi3IL3;TY ~S ADDRESSI;I) ~~ Tlik:~ STA`~'I I)RAr4 SIiOPo A L:IQiJOR FS`.i°AL~LJ_SI3rTFNs ~[S A PR.~~JFL~;I)CF~ ANIJ r'iiJST I3I<a OP~;F'vA`~^r~i7.Ya7I`~r~ A CR AT 1~FAL OF R~SPONS~I3Tr~J~?'Y. T~iE CkiANCr~S I PROPOSE Y~J=LL NOT AO'iIFRSL~ F,FFFC`I' 'J:'.iF C~:T~. 7:,OCJ:CALL3?, A SD'IALL~Ii AN1~ i;~FFJ;CTF,N1'LY RTJN OP~;c~ATTON WOIJr,D ?~F A SAFER PF~ACF., FOR ~;~ERYOi~7~~. S~NC~R~L~ ~-~ ~ iJL "T ?~ve_iiaSO: ~.~ CITY OF .RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter Number 101 Agenda, April 9, 1990 Issue Statement• Consideration of a motion authorizing the Mayor and City~Manager to execute a. settlement agreement in the matter of Knutson vs the City of Richfield. Background• Mr. Knutson .has filed a lawsuit against the City of Richfield in relation. of the failure of the City to grant certain zoning. A settlement on this matter has been prepared. Recommended Motion: Authorize execution of the settlement agreement. Basis For Recommendation: 1. .Advice from City Attorney. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve settlement. 2. Authorize the City Attorney to proceed with trial on this matter. Discussion/Decision Mode: ' This matter will be placed on the agenda for the meeting of April 9, 1990. Respec ully submitted, Jame ~D. Prosser City~~anager JDP:ff Md~~ ~~ ~'~~ i . ~t ~I~i` fhEC ~ VF's-i •'E~ SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE F._ /,~-~ THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEirlENT AND RELEASE is made and tntere8 into this. 9th day of Apr.i1, 1990 by and between the CITY OF RICHPIELD ("City') and RNUDSON/WALT2RS, a personal service corporation and PAUL LEONARD RNUDSON (collectively referred to as 'Knudson"). RECITALS: The parties enter into this Settleotnt Agreement and Release ("Agreement') in order to resolve, settle,-and discharge upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement all of the claims, pzomises, duties, or obligations which arose, or might have arisen out of the City's denial of a special use perait for a restaurant at the Viking Center and which is the subject mattrr of a lawsuit filed in Hennepin County District Court entitled - Rnudson/Waltera, et al. v. City of Richfield, Court file Po. 68- 14941 (`Lawsuit'). The parties wish to settle and ooapromise differences between them arising out of the above natter and therefore the parties agree as follows: 1. Obligations of the City. The obligations of th• City, upon approval of this Agreement by the City Council, are as follows: a. One (1) on-sale intoxicating liquor license in the City .shall remain available: for Knudson to apply for, pursuant to the terms of Pazagraph 1.C. herein, .on or before 1 a~- ur ~ 9~ ~ ~ ~ ~c H~~ME~ 8 GRNvE!: G - ~ /~ -;~ April 9, 1993, and to receive at such time •s sase may be ~:. granted in tht normal course of the City's application process after such application is sale. b. The City shall waive the first full year's license fee for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license when issued by the City pursuant to the terns of Paragraph l.c. herein. c. The City shall grant the application of lcnudaon for an on-sale intoxicating 13quor license and waive the first full year's license fee therefor if Knudson and the proposed location qualify for the license. under the applicable government lays, rules and regulations pertaining to sUCh license and the business to be operated pursuant ~ thereto. lurther, i. the existence of a debt or judgsent, paid or unpaid, or a bankruptcy or discharge in bankruptcy, of such debt or judgment, in favor of Viking Center, or Viking North, or their successors or assigns, and against Rnudaorr, shall not constitute grounds for denial of lCnud$on's application for an on•sale intoxicating liquor license pursuant to this ]lgreenent. ii. for purposes of this paragraph 1, the term •Rnudson' includes any partnership or corporation in which Knudson is s principal or has a controlling interest. 2 `~` ~~~-= iii. the rights granted to Knudson by' this Agreement- shall not be assignable or ttanslerrable, except to the extent described in Paragraph 1.C.ii. herein. iv the City may charge Knudson the euatarary and duly approved investigation fee in connection with Knudson's application pursuant to this 7greement. v. the City will not consider in its deliberation on 1Cnudson's application the. fact that Knudsen commenced or prosecuted the Lawsuit. d. The City shall pay to Knudson's attorney, Richard T. Wylie, Eaq., the sum of 55,000.00 in full satisfaction of all attorney's fees and coats associated with the Lawsuit. Such payment shall be made within 10 days after this Agreement has been signed by the parties. 2. Obligation of Knudson. Knudson agrees to accept the obligations of tht City and payment of attorney's fees and costs by the City. described herein in lull and complete satisfaction of all Knudson's claims against the Ci"ty. 3. Obligations of the City and Knudson. Opon approval of this Agreement by the City Council, and payment of Laudson's attorneys fees as provided herein, the parties shall forthwith obtain and file an Order for Dismissal with prejudice of the Lawsuit. 3 qc~ C~c ' ~~ 1 7 ~ 0- NOLMES S 6RAVEt~ ~ 4. Mutual Release and Covenant .Not. to hue. Tn , consideration of the mutual promises and obligations Contained in the Agreement, the parties, and each of thee, selease and discharge the other parties, and each of them, from any and all claims, demands and causes of action- arising to the date hereof, known and unknown, including, but not by way of limitation, the denials? of lcnudson's applications for special use permits for a portion of the Viking Center in the City, and from all past, present and future damages and consequences hereof, known, and Lnknown; and each party agrees not to sut any other party. on account thereof; and each party agrees that Lhis lgreement shall,. be a complete defense. to any such action. ' S. 1-~reement, Effective.. This 7greement sbail be effective immediately upon its approval by the City Council. Date3: April i, 1990 Knudson/walters, a personal service corporation By Its Pau Leonar Knudson, Individually CITY OF RICSlIELD By Its Nayor sy Its C ty Manager 4