01-07-91 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 2
Agenda January 7, 1991
Issue Statement:
Continuing discussion of the Proposed 1991 Capital Budget and the
Proposed 1992/96 Capital Improvement Program.
Background:
The Proposed 1991 Capital Budget and the Proposed 1992/96 Capital
Improvement Program were discussed at the November 14, 1990
Council Study Session. These items were again discussed during
the Budget Hearing of November 27, 1990. No action has been
taken, to date, by the City Council.
Recommended Motion:
Continue discussion of the Proposed 1991 Capital Budget and the
Proposed 1992/96 Capital Improvement Program.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission, as required, has made its
recommendation for the 1992/96 Capital Improvement Program.
2. The Community Services Commission has made its recommendation
for the 1992/96 Capital Improvement Program. Further review
and recommendation of the Proposed 1991 Capital Budget has
been made by the Community Services Commission at the
direction of Council.
3. The City Council has,-on two occasions, discussed the
Proposed 1991 Capital Budget and Proposed 1992/96 Capital
Improvement Program.
4. To implement any projects, regardless of funding source, it
is necessary for the Council to adopt a 1991 Capital Budget.
5. The Council, upon adoption of a 1991 Capital Budget, will
still have the opportunity to review projects when transitory
ordinance resolutions and awards of contract, where
applicable, are presented to the Council.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not have further discussion of the Proposed 1991 Capital
Budget nor the Proposed 1992/96 Capital Improvement Program.
2. Do not adopt a 1991 Capital Budget or 1992/96 Capital
Improvement Program.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The January 7, 1991 meeting is a Council Study Session. No
action is required at this time. However, for timely initiation,
processing and completion of projects in an adopted.1991 Capital
Budget, regardless of funding source, it is recommended the
Council adopt a 1991 Capital Budget as soon as possible.
y submitted,
RespYDProsser
JameCity r
JDP/ej a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 1
Agenda, January 7, 1991
Issue Statement:
Policy and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues.
Background:
The Richfield Airport Strategy Group has met and reviewed issues
and events related to the airport. R.A.S.G. has provided
recommendations for policy and strategy implementation. Recent
developments regarding the airport include the following:
Interactive Community Planning at MSP.
The MAC has submitted a request to the Legislature requesting the
deadline for the completion of the long-term comprehensive plan
for MSP be extended from January 1, 1991 to January 2, 1992. The
plan will recommend preferred runway and terminal designs which
will reflect aviation facility needs to meet the year 2020
capacity demand. The MAC requests this extension for the
following reasons:
• additional work needs to be done evaluating the proposed
terminal and runway proposals (i.e. costs, noise analysis
and other environmental studies);
. • more input is needed from surrounding communities to
assess the negative environmental impacts and developing
measures to mitigate these impacts from the proposed
enhancement plans. (Interactive planning)
On November 16, 1990, the Minnesota Advisory Council on
Metropolitan Airport Planning took testimony from the MAC,
neighboring airport communities, other governmental agencies and
community groups.
Steve Quam provided testimony on behalf of the City of Richfield
(attached). He stated that the City supports MAC's request to
extend the deadline in order that communities surrounding MSP
will have sufficient time to comment on the proposed enhancement
plans. By extending the deadline, the Legislature would ensure
that the MAC and neighboring cities could have an effective
interactive planning process.
On Tuesday, December 4, 1990, the State Advisory Council on
Airport Planning approved MAC's request to extend the deadline
for submitting the long-term comprehensive plan to the
Legislature. In addition to extending the deadline, the MAC must
fulfill a number of conditions which will provide for a more
extensive process than the current requirements (attached).
One condition requires the MAC to initiate an interactive
planning process with communities adjacent to MSP to determine
the environmental effects and possible mitigative measures for
•
each development proposal. This
Richfield's request for the MAC
develop an interactive planning
condition supports the City of
and neighboring communities to
process.
The state advisory council will forward its recommendation to the
Legislature. The Legislature will give final approval to the
request.
Property Acquisition in New Ford Town/Rich Acres
MAC officials have stated that the commission plans to acquire
the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods. The City of
Richfield has been pressing MAC to schedule the acquisition as
soon as possible. Currently, no time frame for the acquisition
has been developed. MAC officials have stated in agreement with
Richfield officials that acquisition is not dependent on future
airport improvement plans at MSP. Rather, homes should be
acquired for environmental reasons.
Extension of Runway 4/22.
MAC officials have stated that the purposes for extending the
runway include:
• Increased use of Runway 4/22 to alleviate noise pressure
from South Minneapolis and north Richfield residents;
•
• To utilize the recently adopted Runway Use System (RUS).
The City of Richfield's opposition to extending Runway 4/22 is
stated on the attached letter to the MAC commenting on the MAC
Capital Improvement Program, 1991 - 1997.
Recommended Motion:
With this background information, the following recommendations
are provided to address these issues:
Interactive Community Planning at MSP.
The Legislature is expected to approve the MAC's request to
extend the submission deadline and conditions for the MSP long-
term comprehensive plan as recommended by the Minnesota Advisory
Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning. If the Legislature
approves the agreement of conditions which the MAC must fulfill
to extend the submission deadline, the MAC will be required to
develop an interactive community planning process. The
additional legislative language appears to be directed at
diminishing the potential for the airport to remain at its
current location.
The City of Richfield will continue to monitor MAC's proposed
enhancement plans at MSP and participate in the interactive
community planning process.
• Property Acquisition in New Ford Town and Rich Acres.
The City should develop and aggressively press a proposal that
would be submitted to the MAC outlining an agreement plan to buy
out New Ford Town and Rich Acres. The buy out would not be
contingent to airport development options at MSP, but rather to
the negative environmental impacts on the two neighborhoods. The
City would ask the MAC to fund the property acquisition. The
City needs to ensure, through this agreement, that it will not
suffer any unreasonable adverse financial burden.
A comprehensive financial plan must be included in the proposal
to the MAC. The city should hire a public financial expert to
develop this plan.
The estimated cost to develop a comprehensive proposal would be
$10,000 - $15,000. This would include the cost of a financial
consultant and airport planning consultant.
include proposed plans to extend the runway in the interactive
planning process for future airport planning at MSP.
Extension of Runway 4/22.
The City will continue to monitor MAC's proposed plans to extend
the runway. The City has recommended to the MAC that it must
Alternative Recommendations:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
January 7, 1991 Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
These matters will be discussed at the January 7, 1991 Study
Session.
Resp tf lly submitted,
i
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:kab
Attachments
0
TESTIMONY OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD PREPARED'FOR THE
0 MINNESOTA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON METROPOLITAN AIRPORT PLANNING
FOR PRESENTATION ON NOVEMBER 16, 1990
Chairpersons and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding
the Metropolitan Airports Commission's request to extend the
submission date of the long term comprehensive plan for the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The City of
Richfield supports MAC's request to extend the submission date of
the plan to the Legislature from January 1, 1991 to January 1,
1992. This would give surrounding communities sufficient time to
comment on the runway plans proposed by the MAC.
The MAC has found that one additional runway is needed at
MSP to eccomodate projected air traffic increases for this region
in the next 30 years. At the current time, the MAC has
recommended three runway options. Each option will have negative
environmental effects on the surrounding communities. The MAC
needs to select one runway concept that will not create
intolerable disruption to nearby communities.
The City of Richfield asked MAC to develop an interactive
planning process with the cities surrounding the airport as soon
as possible to study the environmental effects from the proposed
runway plans. The group would identify negative environmental
impacts, discuss how these impacts could be mitigated, review
potential mitigation measures such as land clearance, sound
insulation and redevelopment plans.
0
From this analysis, the group would develop a summary report
assessing the impacts on surrounding communities of the proposed
airport plans and the alternatives agreed upon by the group
representatives. The MAC would use this information to make a
final decision of a preferred runway option at MSP.
On June 25, 1990, the Richfield City Council adopted
Resolution No. 7644 in support of the interactive community
airport planning process (attachment). The city has encouraged
all airport neighboring communities to adopt similar resolutions
to persuade the MAC to initiate the formation of the interactive
community planning group. As a result, the cities of
Bloomington, Eagan and Mendota Heights have adopted similar
resolutions.
On January 1, 1992, the Met Council will submit to the
Legislature a search area for a possible new airport. It would
seem reasonable for the MAC to submit the long term comprehensive
plan to the Legislature at the same time.
The Legislature will not make a decision until 1997 whether
to make capacity enhancements at MSP, based on MAC's long term
comprehensive plan, or to build a new airport. The scheduling of
future airport improvements at MSP appears to be dependent upon
the decision regarding a new airport. Therefore, MAC's request
to extend the due date of the plan one year will not cause any
problems in the dual track planning process.
Future planning at MSP must include the surrounding
communities which would allow every affected community to be part
0 of a collaborative effort to decide the future of the airport.
V
• The City of Richfield has taken a proactive and coopertive
position on this issue and has shown its commitment to work with
others, explore every possible option, negotiate, come to
agreement, and move ahead with solutions to airport problems.
The Legislature should extend the submission deadline of
MAC's long term comprehensive plan one year in order for the
_ commission and the neighboring communities to have an effective
interactive planning process.
Attachment: Resolution Expressing Support for Collaborative
Community Airport Planning Process
Resolution No. 7644, City of Richfield
•
0
•
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
CITY OF RICHFIELD )
as
I, Thomas P. Ferber, being the duly qualified and acting
clerk of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of
Resolution No. 7644
and that the same is on file and on record in my office.
Given under my hand and seal
this 14th day of November
. 1990.
--?L F 40
rz
j)-,.L
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
City of Richfield
Hennepin County, Minnesota
0
RESOLUTION NO. 7644
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR
COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY
AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
WHEREAS, by Laws 1989, Chapter 279 (the Act), the
Legislature directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)
to adopt a long-term comprehensive plan for the Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport (MSP) at its existing location; and
WHEREAS, said plan must satisfy air transportation needs for
a prospective 20 year period and must be accompanied by a concept
plan for MSP, including an estimate of facilities requirements,
to satisfy the air transportation needs for an additional ten
year period; and
WHEREAS the Act requires that such plan must describe: (1)
aviation demand and air transportation needs, (2) airport
capacity limits and potential, (3) facilities requirements, (4) a
plan for physical development, (5) airport operational
characteristics, (6) compatibility with metropolitan and local
physical facility systems, (7) environmental effects, (8) safety,
and (9) the effect on the neighboring communities; and
WHEREAS, current operations at MSP and future operations as
they may be altered by future airport capacity enhancements have
adverse environmental impacts on the neighboring communities of
Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Richfield, Mendota Heights
and Eagan, which effects must be identified and considered in the
planning process; and
WHEREAS, measures to mitigate such environmental impacts
such as sound insulation, sound abatement, redevelopment and
clearance should be identified and considered in the planning
process; and
WHEREAS, cities adjacent to MSP may either facilitate or
impede appropriate airport improvements by such activities as
development, redevelopment, construction of capital improvements
and regulation of land use; and
WHEREAS, such activities by adjacent communities may also be
frustrated by decisions made by MAC and about MSP Improvements;
and I
WHEREAS, it is therefore not sound public policy to
undertake planning for capacity enhancements at MSP or
identification of adverse impacts and means of mitigating them
without participation by the communities most effected; and
WHEREAS, there is no process in place for effective exchange
of such information between MAC and neighboring communities.
0
Resolution No. 7644 -2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the Metropolitan Airports Commission initiate a
collaborative community airport planning process; and
2. That the planning process include the cities of
Minneapolis, St. Paul, Richfield, Bloomington,
Mendota Heights and Eagan; and
3. That the purpose of the collaborative interactive
planning process be to identify airport adverse
environmental impacts on communities surrounding
the airport and identify mutually agreeable measures
to mitigate these adverse impacts; and
4. That this information be considered as part of the
MAC capital improvement planning process and
documents; and
5. That this process be initiated as soon as possible; and
6. That the information gathered as part of the interactive
planning process be forwarded together with the MAC
capital improvement plan to the legislature; and
7. That the state legislative deadline for receipt of the
MAC capital improvement plan be extended to at least
June 30, 1991, in order to provide sufficient time
to complete this process.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this 25th day of June, 1990.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
f
Thomas P. Ferber ' City Clerk
0
•
STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON METROPOLITAN AIRPORT PLANNING
December 4, 1990
Room 123, State Capitol
9 A.M. - 12 Noon
A G E N D A
Call to order, Representative Bernie Lieder
Approval of Minutes
1. Resolution to extend the January 1, 1991 deadline for the MAC
adoption of its MSP development plan
2. The Airport Planning Process 1991 - 1996
1. Tom Todd, House Research Ajg4bR7' 1'L1kVfJ1NL? ? 1701• 1 f rA:ZP
2. Frank Benson, FAA AN ovk.R vicw of 3%r5TE..M Yk *Wjj,N1, MA STE-K' P.ArJOP-
4 E NV P-V NM h-77} L ASS ESS M ENT FR c M 7NL rAA T tkspc- erl V ?
3. Gregg Downin, State Planning ' STT
Fr.+??2o:_Ri?:.
MA/ 157-A-7 .11&b
4. John Kari, Metropolitan Council
5. Nigel Finney, Metropolitan Airport Commission
0
s F t? i, ?/ 50
0 CONDITIONS FOR EXTENDING THE MAC DEADLINE
The following are conditions that would be included in an agreement to
extend the deadline for the MAC adoption of its long term comprehensive plan
for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport from January 1, 1991 to
January 1, 1992.
A. The M&;_,o edopt =1 evolon?lent plan, including a single
te?aftial plan,* W& Ut options.
•
B. Each of the long term comprehensive plan options under
consideration by the MAC during 1991 must be evaluated and compared on the
basis of the nine criteria listed in Minn.-Statutes 473.616. Sec. 3, Subd. 1:
• Aviation demand and air transportation needs;
• Airport capacity limits and potential;
• Facilities requirements;
• A plan for physical development, including financial
estimates and a tentative development schedule;
• Airport operational characteristics;
• Compatibility with metropolitan and local physical facility
systems;
• Environmental effects;
• Safety; and
• The effect on the neighboring communities.
C. The MAC must adopt its plan and submit it for the review of the
Metropolitan Council and the Legislature by January 1, 1992. ,?,e
r, r?VN11Y
D. The MAC must set up a task force of local, state and metropolitan Lt,?
officials. The task force should most regularly to provide a sounding board
on work in progress on the long term comprehensive plan. Task force members
serve voluntarily, and the group sunsets on December 31, 1991.
E. Two workshops must be held during the year, with broad
participation including the task force, the Metropolitan Council, the
Transportation Advisory Board, the State Advisory Council on Metropolitan
Airport Planning, the Legislature, and outside experts. The MAC should
present its data to date and gat comments and criticism from those attending
to use in the development of its plan. One workshop should be in January to
help direct the next year's work on the plan and one in summer or early autumn
to review the preliminary plan. The workshops must be sponsored by the MAC
and/or the Metropolitan Council, as appropriate. One of the topics covered
must be off-site effects, costs, and benefits.
0
•
F. The MAC and the Metropolitan Council through the interagency
committee, must jointly sponsor at least two fViA& review sessions during 1991.
These sessions may not be combined with the workshops required in E. The
sessions must include independent outside experts called in to address and
review the work of the MAC. The MAC and the Council, through the interagency
committee, should determine the topic of each of the sessions, may address
different topics in each and call in a different group of experts for each.
Members of the task force and other interested parties should be invited to
the peer review panels.
C. The MAC must adopt a draft development plan with one preferred
option by early autumn of 1991 for purposes of public hearings. The MAC would
be required to hold community meetings regularly throughout ths_ye `r, and to
provide regular reports to the Transportation Advisory Board.
H. The MAC and the Metropolitan Council must evaluate off-site costs
for MAC's plan. Before the first workshop, the MAC and the Council must
determine which off-site socio-economic, public, fiscal, and public
infrastructure effects, costs, and benefits will be the responsibility of
which agency.
I. The MAC must update its long term comprehensive plan before the
*1996 final report to the Legislature.
J. The MAC must initiate an interactive planning process with the
communities adjacent to the airport to help determine o -s to m acts and
potential mitigation measures for each airport development proposal. The
interactive pang must incorporate local elected and maSropolitan officials
with appropriate staff support, and must provide input to the FO -Prior to t e
selection of a terminal or airfield plan.
1, OV r?
a ? .
Prk oN? ?1
00"
c)`
eeTAAAL?
St 00 .fL -,?
CAA(
0
0 DATE: December 11, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richfield Airport Strategy Group
FROM: Don Priebe
SUBJECT: 4-22 Extension
I believe our position on the 4-22 extension should be along the
following lines.
I. We have no objection to the extension of the runway to
11,000 feet as a part of improving the overall operating
efficiency of the airport. We would willingly accept our
share of additional traffic on runway 22 from the present
brake release point providing a reasonably equal share use
of the extended runway in the opposite direction. We would
require adequate safeguards to prevent displacement of the
departure threshold on runway 22 closer to Richfield and
Bloomington after completion of the extension.
II. We are unalterably opposed to the proposed displacement of
the departure threshold on runway 22 for the following
reasons.
A. It does nothing to increase or improve the capacity of
the airport.
B. Its sole purpose is to transfer huge amounts of
departure traffic noise from the northwest to the
southwest at increased intensity because the planes
would start their takeoff roll one-half mile closer to
our residents. 'There would be no limit to the increased
traffic on runway 22 and we could return to a situation
similar to the late 70's and early 80's when, at times,
runway 22 received 7 to 14 times as many departures as
those to the northwest and northeast.
C. It would likely exacerbate rather than correct the most
glaring inequity in the current distribution of aircraft
traffic - the lack of flights over St. Paul at the
northeast end of 4-22.
D. Departure traffic to the northwest on runway 29L and 29R
could be reduced by changing control tower procedures.
In the first nine months of 1986 when traffic levels
were six percent higher than in 1990, departures on 29L
and 29R averaged 14.9 percent of the total, compared to
a fully equal share of 16.67 percent for each runway.
Departures on 22 averaged 12.8 percent.
Richfield Airport Strategy Group
December 11, 1990
Page 2
A return to 1986 control tower procedures could reduce
traffic on 29L and 29R well below 1986 averages because
traffic levels are lower now and the restrictions on
flights to the northeast in effect in 1986 have been
eliminated.
E. Since 1970, the decision to direct excessive traffic to
the southwest has been justified by the contention that
fewer people would be-affected. Yet, both the 1970 and
1980 census show more people are affected by runway 22
than runway 29L, runway 29R or runway 4.
Area Runway 1970 Census 1980 Census
Bloomington-Richfield 22 52,706 42,082
68th to 98th East of 35W
Minneapolis* 29L 48,394* 41,689*
South of 42nd, Lyndale
to Minnehaha plus Richfield 29R 48,394* 4111689*
North of 68th, East of 35W
St. Paul 4 43,424 38,335
South of St. Clair, West
of Victoria
*Two-thirds of the total people in the area are applied to each
runway to account for those who are affected by both runways.
III. Analysis of arguments for accepting 4-22 extension project.
A. The argument states we should give in on the 4-22
extension so as to improve our chances of getting an
acceptable solution to the New Ford Town and Rich Acres
problem.
Answer: New Ford Town and Rich Acres
a solution to their situation because
responsible. We should not have to p,
greater number of Richfield residents
worse conditions in order to get fair
Ford Town and Rich Acres.
residents deserve
the airport is
at an equal or even
into the same or
treatment for New
B. The argument states that our refusal to accept the 4-22
extension increases the likelihood that the airport will
move.
Answer:'.The airport will move only when there are real
capacity problems and this project has no affect on
capacity. If the price of retaining the airport here is
0 a substantial degradation in the quality of life for
large numbers of our residents, we should probably
accept its departure.
DP:ff
City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423?2599
•
•
City Manager Mayor
James D. Prosser Steve Ouam
October 31, 1990
Mr. Nigel Finney
Deputy Executive Director
Planning and Environment
_ Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Council
Edwina Garcia Ivan ludeman
Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl
RE: Comments on the Environmental Review Process
MAC Capital Improvement Program 1991-1997
Dear Mr. Finney:
The City of Richfield has reviewed the Metropolitan Airports
Commission's 1991-1997 Capital Improvement Program Assessment of
Environmental Effects and the two environmental assessment
worksheets. The city is concerned about the potential
environmental effects of four projects. Our comments and
questions for each project are listed below.
• Runway 4/22 Extension (1992)
(Attachment)
• Apron Paving at Southwest Hangar/Cargo Area (1991)
Since the proposed project is less than one mile east of
Cedar Avenue, the City of Richfield is interested in the
possible noise impacts on the community. The city would
like more information on:
'l. The type of aircraft to be used.
2. The hours of heaviest use.
3. The likelihood of future increases from the estimated
maximum 20 additional operations per day, and the amount
of increase.
4. Weekday versus weekend operations.
5. The prevalent noise impacts (single events two to three
times per hour, or concentrated periods of activity).
6. The start and completion dates to fully develop the 27.4
acre complex.
7. Noise mitigation efforts if any are planned.
8. Any other relevant information that may be available.
7eteonone 361-9700 612
Fax 961-9749
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Nigel Finney
• October 31, 1990
Page Two
• Land Use Modification (1991)
On April 2, 1990, the FAA approved MAC's Noise Compatibility
Program. MAC's implementation program was expected to be
completed by the end of 1990, with some funds available by the
summer of 1991. Richfield has been actively encouraging MAC
to move quickly on this matter. FAA Part 150 funding is
admittedly a long, drawn out process. Yet, it would seem that
i the $28 million planned under the land use modifications
projects is an ideal starting point with which to commence the
assessment of environmental effects.
e Taxiway B Construction (1994)
The City of Richfield would be interested in the cumulative
effect of 66,000 general aviation operations on taxiway B
per year. It would also be helpful to know the type of
aircraft that was used to determine the increase of 1.8 DBA.
As larger commuter and corporate aircraft tend to use MSP,
and smaller general aviation aircraft tend to choose satellite
airports, the type of aircraft sampled becomes more relevant.
The city acknowledges the desirability of the proposed
taxiway. We would like to determine the extent of any
environmental impacts to our residents before it is
constructed.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and submit comments on
the 1991-1997 Capital Improvement Programs.
Sincerely,
esD. Prosse
ity Manager
JDP:kab
Attachments
0
•
Attachment
Runway 4/22 Extension (1992)
The City of Richfield has the'following environmental concerns,
both environmental and collaborative, regarding the extension of
runway 4/22:
z 1. Interactive Process
The city is opposed to the extension of runway 4/22 until an
objective and comprehensive interactive process has been
completed. We would like to see the interactive discussion
result in a genuine, frank consideration that all parties can
endorse. Such an interactive process has the added value of
being a model for future airport development projects of concern
to neighboring communities.
2. Mitigation Flight Tracks
The proposed flight tracks for the extension of runway 4/22 by
the FAA, MnDOT, MAC and HNTB all contradict each other.
• Fall 1988: FAA said, "full departure airspace is routinely
required to fan aircraft. .
• February 1989: The environmental assessment report said,
"for noise modeling purposes specific tracks must be
identified."
• June 1989: The MnDOT scoping document said, "establishment
of new flight headings to shift overflights from residential
areas. ."
• September 1990: The Capital Improvement Plan said,
"establishing four runway 2g departure headings" and
spegfies them as 3500, g50 , southerly over Cedar Ave.
(180 ) and 150 east (165 ).
Since the flight track proposal has changed from full fanning to
specific tracks to four tracks over commercial areas, the City of
Richfield asks for clarification on this subject, which should
include the resolution of variances in the statements by the FAA,
MnDOT, MAC and HNTB.
3. Aircraft Noise
The city has three concerns regarding the effects of aircraft
noise on the environment:
• The intensity of noise is increased for the city since the
takeoff point is moved more than a half mile closer.
Takeoffs over Richfield and Bloomington would increase from
a daily average of 20 to 111. Combined with a takeoff point
more than a half mile closer to the community, Richfield has
serious reservations about both equity and substantial
adverse effects of noise.
• Richfield has no protection that the! percentage of takeoffs
will not increase in the future. Much here depends on how
the MSP tower applies the RUS. As you are aware, the
proposed extension of runway 4/22 is currently being
evaluated in a joint federal/state environmental impact
statement. A revised schedule for completion of this
document has been prepared indicating final FAA approval in
January 1991. The methods used to operate the proposed
extension should provide assurances to Richfield that
distributional equity is maintained.
Twelve months ago, the City of Richfield submitted Resolution No.
7553 (attached) for the FAA's consideration. This resolution
requested the majority of traffic be focused in the corridor, and
equitably distribute the remaining traffic off of the four runway
ends.
The FAA's response in a letter from Doug Powers, the air traffic
manager at the time, stated in part:
"To equitably distribute the remaining traffic (i.e. other
than corridor operations) off of the four runway ends is
operationally impractical. As a result, this resolution
would have us committed to obtaining a balance that simply
could not be done."
The City of Richfield acknowledges that such an ideal may be
unattainable due to operational constraints. However, it remains
a criterion by which equitable distribution may properly be
measured. Four years ago, airport operations were greater than
today. Yet, the tower was able to use the cross runway more
frequently than now. The new facility manager at MSP, Jeff
Griffin, indicated his willingness to use the cross runway more
subject to a six month or so training period for controllers.
Mr. Griffin made his comments at the October 23, 1990 M.A.S.A.C.
meeting. Richfield would like to see such efforts pursued to
balance the operations between the southwest and northeast ends
of runway 4/22.
0
•
RESOLUTION NO. 7553
RESOLUTION REGARDING A
RUNWAY USE SYSTEM
AT
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
WHEREAS, any runway use system at Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport (MSP Airport) must recognize that all areas
surrounding MSP Airport benefit from its proximity and all areas
must share in the overflights, and
WHEREAS, any change from the present system will require
extensive environmental review and thus must be clearly fair to
all involved, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Runway
correct the fundamental problem of
Runway System since it still provi
over some nearby residential areas
similar areas when traffic levels,
conditions permit.
Use System,(RUS) does not
the present Preferential
3es for unlimited overflights
and total exemptions for other
wind conditions and runway
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield
requests that MASAC recommend and the MAC approve a runway use
system that within the limits of the safe, efficient operation of
the airport would first direct as much air traffic Southeast of
the airport (arrive on Runways 29 Left and Right; depart on
Runways 11 Left and Right) as could be contained in the corridors
the affected communities have zoned for overflights, and secondly
place the remaining traffic as equally as possible on the other
four runways, all of which overfly similar nearby residential
areas.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
25th day of September, 1989.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
•