The URL can be used to link to this page

08-07-89 agendas~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. :2=3 Agenda August 7, 1989 Issue Statement• Designation of Council representation at National League of Cities Conference, November 25-29, Atlanta, Georgia. Background• The 1989 adopted and 1989 revised council budget provides funds for two council members to attend the NLC annual conference. In 1988, registrations for this conference were made for Mayor Quam and Council Members Garcia and Sandahl. The estimated cost of this conference is 51300 per person. Mayor Quam is planning to attend this conference, and Council Member Garcia has indicated an interest in attending. Recommendation: Council Members should select one or two members to represent the city at this conference. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Funds for two council members are available in the 1989 budget document. 2. The council should select representatives for this conference. 3. Deadline for early registration is September 4 (early registration is $245, after that date registration is $280 per person). Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not limit attendance and adjust the budget document accordingly. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the study session agenda for discussion purposes. Although the conference is not until late November, it is helpful to make registrations as early as possible to assure hotel accommodations, and to take advantage of the early lower registration fee and special flight arrangements with Northwest. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City nager JDP/ej a League of Minnesota Cities 183 University Ave. East St. Paul, MN 55101.2526 (612) 227-5600 (FAX: 221.0986) July 11, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks FROM: -Ann Higgins, Federal Liaison SUBJECT: REGISTRATION/HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR 1989 NLC CONGRESS OF CITIES, NOVEMBER 25-29, ATLANTA, GA. The NLC Congress of Cities in Atlanta offers Minnesota. city officials an exciting program of workshops and plenary sessions on key topics that will aid local government to make progress through improved performance, participation and partnerships. Enclosed please find a copy of the. NLC program and registration materials for the 66th NLC Congress of Cities, to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, November 25-29. City officials. are urged to register as soon as possible in order to obtain convenient hotel accommodations. Note-that payment in full for NLC registration. is required at the time registration is filed. Only paid registrations will be processed. Deadline for early. registration is September 4. The final date for advance registration is October 23. After that date, it will be necessary to register on site. If hotel reservations are made after Ocrober 23, room rates may be higher than those listed. Hotel Accommodations The workshops and committee meetings will be held at the Georgia World. Congress Center. (Please refer to the map in the brochure.) The Omni International Center is the hotel located immediately across the street from the World Congress Center. Other hotels are located nearby (within walking distance for most delegates). NLC shuttle bus transportation is available from all .hotels other than .the Omni International. Carefully review housing information in the brochure. When sending deposits to reserve .assigned hotel accommodations, send payments directly to the hotel, not to the NLC Registration Center. Pay close attention to hotel reservation instructions. Note deadlines for cancellations and changes. Most of the hotels listed accept major national credit cards for room deposits and guaranteed arrival; however, some accept only specific credit cards for that purpose. Some cities prefer to use government purchase orders for hotel accommodation payments. Please note that purchase orders, vouchers, etc. must be received one month prior to arrival date and are subject to hotel approval. Please be sure to check with the specific hotel for appropriate payment arrangements. I Review the section. of the brochure. entitled Hotel. Accommodation Information and. pay particular attention to the deadlines for advance housing deposits. The .deposit is due as soon as you receive confirmation of reservations from the hotel. LMC Delectation Activities The League is making plans to.hold a number of events during the Congress of Cities in a manner similar to the programs conducted at the '88 NLC Congress of Cities in Boston. Locations in Atlanta offer significant historic, educational, cultural and political settings for program activities. Details on LMC delegation programs and activities will be sent to city officials, along with additional information about .Atlanta and opportunities for visiting sites of interest in the .vicinity. Last year LMC held delegation activities on Monday evening and Tuesday morning. Please reserve time on Monday evening, November 27, and Tuesday morning, November 28, for LMC delegation programs to be announced. NLC Policy Development/LMC Brief in LMC delegates are urged to attend the LMC Delegation Briefing on Sunday, November 26, at 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. The .location of the meeting has not yet been determined. That information will also be forthcoming in a future mailing on conference program details. . The following city officials are members of NLC Steering and Policy Committees and are expected to attend NLC committee meetings to be held on Sunday; November 26. (Some committees will meet in the morning; others in the afternoon. Please make your travel arrangements to permit your arrival prior to the time of committee meetings..) It is important for Minnesota city officials to participate in the NLC policy development through membership on NLC committees.' Please. notify me if you know that you will be unable to continue to serve on the committee to which you were appointed last January. If you are interested in serving on one of the NLC committees next year, please contact me. The LMC President appoints Minnesota city officials to NLC policy committees each January. The League also recommends appointment of Minnesota city officials to NLC Steering Committee. membership at that time. Officials may serve up to four terms as NLC committee members. Attendance at meetings is important in considering renewal of current committee appointments.. The opportunity for additional city officials to participate in the development of NLC National Municipal Policy is also considered in making new committee appointments each year. i ~(o Community & Economic Development Steering Committee Member: Tony Scallen, Councilmember,-Minneapolis Policy Committee Members: Joyce Benson, Councilmember, Duluth Robert DeGhetto, Councilmember, Minnetonka Leland Swanson, Mayor, Morris Joanell Dyrstad, Mayor, Red Wing Chuck Wolden, Councilmember, Owatonna Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Steering Committee Member: Steve.Cramer, Councilmember, Minneapolis Policy Committee Members: Bernie Beerman, Councilmember, Inver Grove Heights Dean Massett, Council Administrator,. Red Wing Edwina Garcia, Councilmember, Richfield Robert Matson, Councilmember, Roseville Vernon Lippert, Councilmember, Austin Alternate: Bob Long, Councilmember, St. Paul Finance,, Administration & Intergovernmental Relations Steering Committee Member: Millie MacLeod, Councilmember, Moorhead President, LMC Policy Committee Members: Larry Bakken, Councilmember, Golden Valley Janel Bush, .Federal Liaison, Minneapolis James Krautkremer, Mayor, Brooklyn Park Don Ramstad, Councilmember, Maple Grove Mark Steen, Councilmember, Duluth Alternate: Peter Grover, Councilmember, Austin Human Development • Steering Committee Member: Clarence Ranallo, Councilmember,.St. .Anthony Policy .Committee Members: Frank Jewell, Councilmember, Duluth Carol Johnson, Councilmember, Minneapolis George Marks, Councilmember, St. Anthony Steve Quam, Mayor., Richfield Leon Steiner, Councilmember, Albert Lea Transportation & Communications Steering Committee Member: Pete Bolinger, Alderman, Rochester Policy Committee Members: Karen Anderson, Councilmember, .Minnetonka RobertaBenke, Mayor, New Brighton' Chuck Dehn, Councilmember, Maple. Grove Robert Sundland, Mayor, St. Anthony (one position vacant) Enclosure • -- AIRLINE RESERVATION INFORMATION INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL EXCHANGE has. agreed to make travel arrangements to .and from Atlanta for city officials attending the-1989 NLC Congress of Cities. A contract with Northwest Airlines will be discussed to provide. arrangements to offer city officials attending the conference the opportunity to obtain special airfare discounts of 5 percent off the lowest fares available at the time of booking as well as 40 percent off regular nonrestrictive coach fares from any destination to Atlanta during the conference. This means that, in addition to the flight times listed below, city officials can take advantage of-these same .low rates for departures and return flights for the conference scheduled at other times during that week. Flyers to be sent at a later time will detail the travel arrangement contract with Northwest Airlines through International Travel Exchange.. International Travel Exchange has an 800 number that is available for city officials to use in confirming. your reservations. The options provided for travel arrangements mean that those attending may determine whether to use the discount on the Super Saver rate (nonrefundable tickets) for the lowest fare or the discount on the nonrestrictive airfares that allow ticketholders to make changes in departure and return flights, if needed - without penalty. At this time, the following flights have been booked for use in traveling to the '89 NLC Congress of Cities to provide for arrival and departure times convenient to-NLC conference and committee meeting schedules. As noted above, however, it is possible to obtain the same discounts on other scheduled flights simply by contacting International Travel Exchange to make those arrangements. Suggested Departure Fliahts Friday, November 24 NW #760 Depart Mpls/St Paul 7:55 a.m. Arrive Atlanta 11:21 a.m. NW #612. " " 12:50 p.m. " " 4:17 p.m. NW #764 ~~ .~ 5:45 p.m. ~. .. 9:08 p.m. Saturday, November. 25 NW #760 Depart Mpls/St Paul 7:55 a.m. Arrive Atlanta 11:21 a.m. Suggested Return Fli hts Wednesday, November 29 NW #765 Depart Atlanta 5:00 p.m. Arrive'Mpls/St Paul 6:28 p.m. Thursday, November 30 NW #761 Depart Atlanta 7:00 a.m. NW #763 " " 12:05 p.m. Arrive Mpls/St Paul 8:30 a.m. " " 1:36 p.m. -over- Please call 612-483-8236 or 1-800-331-596 to make arrangements with Cindy Arendts at International Travel Exchange. "Northwest brochures. to be sent out later this summer-will also specify a • node-number that will be assigned to .the NLC conference flight arrangements for Minnesota city officials. You may wish to refer to that code number when contacting travel agency representatives. .The address for. International Travel .Exchange is: International Travel Exchange , 3585. North Lexington. Avenue Suite 120. (Arden Plaza) .Shoreview,. MN 55126 '``-~ ` ,~ EGIE' COLLABORATIVE PLANNING RESEARCH TRAINING ABOUT.. . ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ;. ~~~ ~ }}i~ ,, f'~ o~~ s ~( ~~i ~ ~ ~~~ #( its 18R.~~,1 ~::; ~~~E °y~ i Ilr~ ~~ ~~ ~ 33 £E' xt: ; ~~3~~~2 ~~~ •~ ;£~PY7s ap I~~yF r~t, ~?I 3tf3 9j'{~{ f F Y~ ~ ~k ;(k Qu ~ ~¢ii e € ~ l~~k b +'f ~v -~ z P ~£~~,~ ~Ifd§~+6s3¢~ ~ Fi ~ _,~i~ ~;;CYkF~~f3e l~~ fs~(f 1 3 3 i ~YY ~ i3 k~ rif~f4Sg g i! ~ ~ ?~. E ~'~f igr~npf ~~$~~dZt 2 S31 ~~< IZ ;. {:. gd~¢t~lip.3{E~iiEi'i~i €i£i€ ' >~? ~ £,1i~~< tl~l•',>~:.!. #> f£ iii: 1` a #s £ ,g~ t~ 3} S't t~: ~{{~`'k ;g~tci~ 3 :; ~ ~. ~ F ~{ r £ 5 ).{a~ fEr 3. i. '.~gi 3, :.. ,. '~x~~T' ' i 3a( { ~ f ~ s ,3. t 3 e33 i ;; ' ~4f _. _~: if .. ~f.i ' ~iet~i .. ~~`~i MAPPING STRATEGIES Mapping Strategies is a consortium of independent consultants assisting organizations in creating proactive changes through the use of COLLABORATIVE PLANNING, RESEARCH AND TRAINING. Characteristics of the Collaborative Process Are:' Integration of Research and Planning Multi-Level Communications Cooperative Decision-Making Act(ve Participation Mapping Strategies provides a unique process to assist organizations with the collection and analysis of relevant data critical to the decision-making process. At the same time, this process helps to build individual commitment through structured collaborative participation. COLLABORATIVE PROCESS CLIENT APPLICATIONS INCLUDE: PLANNING RESEARCH Strategic Planning Focus Groups Environmental Scanning ~ . Needs Assessments Multi-Level Decision-Making Customer Service Surveys Committee Recommendations Personality Profiles: Myers Briggs, duality Circles Readiness for Change TRAINING Communication/Listening Skills Leadership/Management Skills Managing Change Seminar Team Building Skills Mapping Strategies is committed to the use of GROUP DECISION SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY. The speck system which we use is called the OptionFinder. This system is one of the few technologies that not only enlists the participation of each member of the group -but insists on it, in a meaningful and non-threatening way. Participants are thus brought into the process of cooperative decision- making as they make their own individual contributions to the process. This process not only empowers the participants but also builds team spirit while fully utilizing the expertise ofindividuals within organizational decision-making groups. The graphic and statistical data which is electronically captured during group sessions provides powerful documentation for follow-up communications within reports, presentations and recommendations. 2425 W. Co. Rd. C2, Suite 226, Roseville, MN 5519 3 (6 9 2) 636-1354 . ..~~o DATA DISPLAYS Entire Group -MAIN MAP. (Test Run Title) 100 I 75 M P ~ A C 25 T 0 1 2.5 4 5.5 7 LIKELIHOOD 100 75 ..., ..: f 2s o r 1 2 3 a 5 Group Scatterplot (ltem A ... n) 100 I M 75 P A ~ C T 25 0 1 2.5 4 5.5 7 .LIKELIHOOD Subgroup Comparison (Item A ... n) 100 I 75 a 3 M P ~ t A C ~ T 0 1 2.5 4 5.5 7 LIK~UMO~Q A F C a s i D H E X ) X X X X XX. X COMBINE TWO PREFERENCE VOTES "GROUP MAP" BAR CHART GROUP SCATTER MAP (Individual Votes on One Item) SUBGROUP COMPARISON MAP 1. Teachers 2. Students 3. Parents 4. Staff O Jim Prosser 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Jim: Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs Humphrey Center 301 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 (612) 373-2653 March 15, 198y Thank you for your inquiry about our team building conflict management availability. I have waded into a number of tough conflicts and, from feedback I have received, been helpful in challenging groups to get their real agendas on the table for discussion. My approach is really a three-step process I spend time listening to the many faces of the I am analyzing, using the Diamond Model. I the enclosed a packet on the Diamond so you can see people's attention to values, mission and power structure and resources. - listen - analyze - suggest. issue(s). As I am doing so, n share the model. I've how it works. It directs issues and away from With the diagnostic tool before us, we are ready to plot a strategy of action together. This process can be done in steps. STEP I Meet with key players for initial conversation. STEP II Meet with whole group to begin listening and analysis STEP III Use Diamond Model. STEP IV Plan next steps. These steps can be combined in any combination. The length of time depends on the difficulties I encounter and the ease of working with the group. I charge $1,000 a day plus expenses. The days will be determined early on, after Step I. There is no charge for a one-hour Step I meeting. Hope this is helpful. Sincerely, Bob Terry Director Reflective Leadership Center UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES BT/sm enc. .-,~-. HUMAN ACTION FRAMING TOOL Meaning existence ~~. ' i i GENERIC FEATURES OF HUMAN ACTION DEFINED MEANING - A significance giving term, that for which hi~.man action moves. MISSION - A direction term, that toward which human action moves. POWER - An ever term, that by which human action moves. STRUCTURE - A form/process term, that through which human action moves. RESOURCES - a material term, that with which human action moves. E%ISTENCE - A limiting term, that from which human action moves. FULFILLMENT - An embodiment term, that into which human action moves. .:.~ -i ~~ ~lleaning Existence f WHATEVER THE PROBLEM tS, tT tS REALLY THE NEXT LEVEL UP ... AND WE TEND TO SOLVE 1T THE NEXT LEVEL DOWN. -•~_~ ~ THE DIAMOND MODEL When examining organizations, four interdependent dimensions --Mission, Power, Structure, and Resources--can be charted on a diamond as illustrated below. Mission (M} refers to the purposes, directions or visions of the future. Power (P) is the expenditure of energy, the activity of making and keeping decisions over time. Structure (S) points to a form, plan, or regularized set of activities. Resources (R) include anything that can be distributed. Leadership is exercised in the area between power and mission. The dimensions outlined in the diamond have a particular hierarchical order, as shown in the figure below. it ~ 1 Mission directs power, power energizes and modifies structure, and structure allocates resources. Conversely, resources limit structure, structure curtails power, and power restricts mission. ' In diagnosing and solving problems within their organizations, leaders need to recognize the following curious phenomena: if one perceives a particular dimension to be the root of the problem, its fundamental source is.the next 2eve1 up on the hierarchy. For example, if one identifies a structural difficulty, a power problem actually exists. Despite this, the natural tendency of leaders is to solve ,problems at a level lower than they really are. This model suggests that one must go a level higher than one's initial diagnosis indicates in order to find the real cause. --Developed by Dr. Robert W. Terry ~ , ~. LEADERStdIP - A SUS SET OF HUMAN ACT{ON Ethical Vision Rowe r Trait ~?'~ ' i Y' L$ A D 8 B S H I P LEADEBSHIP IS TSS COIIBAGE TO BBING F08TH AND I.ET C~ FOBTH AUTHEATIC ACTION IN TSE COMMONS. .,~.i / ETHICAL HIIMAN ACTION DIAGNOSTIC TOOL RESPONSIBILITY LOVE EMPOWERMENT AIITHENTICTY JIISTICE FREEDOM DWELLING ~ ~~ 8 ETHICAL HUMAN ACTION FRAMING TOOL Responsibility Love E m power- ment / Justice' Dwelling -~~ LEADERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE / ~~~ ~y a~ ~a v Management .~,; ~..~ 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 10 Agenda April 3, 1989 Issue Statement: Policy and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues Background• The Richfield Airport Strategy Group has reviewed issues and events related to airport issues and has provided recommendations for policy and strategy implementation. Recent developments regarding the airport include the following: o Airport Study. Richfield and Bloomington had previously discussed the possibility of initiating a study to examine issues unresolved by the Metropolitan Council's airport adequacy task force study. The major issues for additional study. included: -Economic impact for the region and local Richfield/Bloomington economies if the airport would move. -Cost of infrastructure improvements required for moving the airport. -Need for additional capacity. -Capacity enhancement alternatives for the current site. The City of Bloomington had directed that their staff assess the interest level from other communities prior to authorizing this study. A report from Bloomington shows the following results. -Burnsville. Presented at their 3/28/89 Council meeting. -Edina. Matter will be reconsidered on 4/389 for potential fuding. -Eden Prairie. Recommendation to participate will be made 4/4/89. -Eagen. Council declined participation 3/21/89. -Mendota Heights. Will await results from other communities before making a decision. -Minnetonka. Mayor declined to bring before Council. -Plymouth. No scheduled date for discussion. On Monday, March 27, the Bloomington City Council approved this study by a vote of 5-2. Richfield and Bloomington will develop a new study schedule. It is likely that the city council would be requested to approve a contract in early May. i ~ `~ o Legislation has been introduced regarding implementation of the dual. track approach. The legislation would establish an airport planning board. That planning board would be responsible for reviewing the progress toward implementing the dual track and making recommendations to the Legislature. The legislation provides specific deadline for reporting progress on the planning steps. A copy of that legislation and an analysis is attached. o MASAC announced that they will undertake an evaluation of the 180-day test. The 180-day test increased the number of flights over St. Paul. MASAC will also evaluate runway use generally. MASAC reported that it will take approximately one year to complete the evaluation and provide a recommendation regarding continued use of this runway use pattern. o Staff continued discussions with MAC regarding the possibility of support for redevelopment of noise impacted portions of New Ford Town from residential to uses more compatible to the airport. o Council Member Ludeman reported the results of a recent NOISE Committee meeting with an assistant from Representative Oberstar's office. At that meeting, the assistant to Oberstar stated that Representative Oberstar supports relocating the airport north of-the Twin Cities area. o The Mayor received a letter from Council Member Steve Cramer requesting Richfield participation in a study evaluating alternative uses for the MSP airport site. o Two separate attempts have been made to take over Northwest Airlines. o The airport questionnaire draft has been revised. The survey is expected to be initiated in mid- April. o The airport brochure has been printed and should have been mailed to all residents by April 3. Recommended Action: With this background, the following recommendations are provided to address these issues: D A-i.Y•s'in+^} C#~it'7f= Ifln ~~z•-~-~}+~v+~nr-~irior+ r~-rsrr.~r~.l ~i bk, '--. time. It is likely that Burnsville, Eden Prairie, and Edina will contribute $5,000 each to the study. r~ It is uncertain whether there will be a request to change the scope of the study as a result of these contributions. Richfield and Bloomington have agreed that any request to change the scope of the study will be evaluated on the basis of cost and compatibility with basic study purpose. o Legislative Action. An analysis of the proposed legislation shows some. advantages and disadvantages for Richfield. Two key issues that need to be addressed are: -An apparent assumption within the legislation that the airport will move. -Uncertainty regarding Richfield's ability to be represented on aviation planning committee. The strategy group recommends that city staff will determine the ability to coordinate these concerns with MAC and Met Council in an effort to produce appropriate changes in the legislation. o MASAC review of 180-day test. RASG recommends that the city assess the potential for developing a coalition of suburban noise impacted communities to address the review of the noise distribution efforts. Minneapolis and St. Paul have traditionally heavily influenced noise distribution efforts. Suburban communities, less populated and less unified, have been unable to have a major influence in these noise distribution programs. The development of a coalition might enhance our ability to influence final results in runway use. o New Ford Town property uses. No action or recommendations are provided on this item. Staff will continue to work with MAC to determine the feasibility of financing alternative uses for noise impacted property within this area consistent with Part 150 study. o Oberstar Comment. No direct action is recommended regarding Oberster's comments. This information is quite helpful in discussing the potential impact of the relocation of the airport for some south suburban community. o Cramer MSP Site recommends that prior to making in the MSP site -The unlikeli] closed, even Use Study. The strategy group Richfield clarify several issues a decision regarding participation use study. Those issues included: Zood that the MSP site would be if another airport is built. -y -The jurisdiction of the airport site if the airport is relocated and the MSP site is abandoned. -The timeframe for redevelopment, especially in light of the experience for redeveloping the Met Stadium site. -The cost and space requirements for infrastructure improvements to carry additional traffic required for redevelopment within this site. -There is at least one potential major drawback to the city participation in a study as requested by Council Member Cramer. Participation may provide a signal to some that Richfield is forsaking our position that the airport should remain in its current location. -Requesting that the issues identified by the city be addressed before we would agree to participate in a study may avoid that problem. Not participating in the analysis places the city in a position of being oppositional and unwilling to cooperate in a review of critical issue relating to airport use. We would also not be in the position of requiring that the issues that we have identified are adequately addressed. If the study is incomplete, and we do not participate in the analysis, it is more difficult to have standing to criticize the effort. o Northwest Airlines takeover. The strategy group identified the potential takeover of Northwest Airlines as an impediment to aggressive support for new airport sites since new ownership of Northwest Airline would likely have greater debt, less money would be available to finance new airport facilities. The press is very likely to be aware of this connection. o Survey. A draft of the survey is attached. Any comments regarding survey questions should be provided at the workshop on April 3. The survey will include a random survey of Richfield residents and survey of south Minneapolis residents. South Minneapolis would include the southern wards 10, 11 and 12. It was determined that Bloomington should not be included in the survey because the results would not provide any special benefit to Richfield. o Airport Brochure. Council members are encouraged to refer those people with questions or comments regarding the brochure to the city. City staff will attempt to compile information regarding questions and responses about the brochure for council review at a later date. -' S ..~ o Runway 4/22 Extension. Council Member Garcia presented the comments regarding the 4/22 extension scoping at a public hearing held on March 30. A copy of the comments are attached. Written comments will be provided to MNDot prior to April 7. Alternative Recommendation: 1. A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the April 3 study session. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be discussed at the April 3 study session. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP/ej a i Reproduced by YI11LL11'S LE[i15LA"1"1V~ SERVI(:>; 1 A bill for an act 2 relating to metropolitan airport planning; requiring 3 various actions, plans, and reports by the • 4 metropolitan council and the metropolitan airports - 5 commission; establishing a state advisory council on 6 metropolitan airport planning; proposing coding for 7 new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 473. 8 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA : ' 9 Section 1. [473.155) [AVIATION PLANNING.] 10 Subdivision 1. [AVIP.TIOi~ PLANNING ASSESSMENT.] By Jan~ar;~ 11 1 of each year, the council shall pre are an assessment of ai* ~2 transportation trends and factors that may affect ma 'or airport 13 development in the metropolitan area for a pros ective 30-year 14 period. 15 Subd. 2. [AVIATION PLAN.J By Febcuary 1, 1990, the council 16 shall amend the aviation chapter of the metropolitan develo ment 17 guide to incorporate policies and strate ies that will ensure a 18 ccmprehensive, coordinated, continuin thorough, and timely 15 investigation and evaluation of alternatives for maior air o-t 2G cevelopment•in the metropolitan area•fot a prospective ~0-yea^ 21 period. The alternatives to be examined must include both the 22 airport improvements and enhancements of Capacity .that may be 23 necessary at the existing airport.and the location and 29 development of a new airport. .. ..:'.. 25 Subd. 3. [SEARCH AREA.] ~ January 1, 1992, the council, 2~• in consultation with the airports commission, shall designate a^ 1 03/15/89 F~. ;\ is ;! ~•: - ____ requirement does not apply to the report under 36 paragraph (a). ' (REVISOR ) HMW/CF 89-2600 1 area within the metropolitan area as a search area for a maior 2 new airport. 3 Subd. 4. [LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.) jai Until the activities 4 required by section 2, subdivision 3, and section 3 are 5 completed, the council shall report to the legislature by 6 January 1 of each year on the results of the aviation planning 7 activities of the council under this section. 8 Sb) By February 1, 1990, after consulting further with the 9 airports commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, 10 industry representatives, and other persons, the council shall 11 report to the legislature. on assumptions and methods that will 12 be used by the council to forecast demand for air travel and 13 capacity needs at major airport facilities in the metropolitan 14 area. ' 15 (c)_ By February 1, 1990, the council shall report to the 16 legislature recommending methods and le islative actions that 17 would be necessary to protect a new airport search area from 18 conflicting development, to protect and control development on 19 land at and .around a site for a ma 'or new airport, and to 20 inhibit land speculation and reduce incentives for land 21 speculation in the air ort area 22 (d) By February 1, 1990, the council shall report to the 23 legislature analyzing and makin recommendations on aviation 24 goals for the maior airport facility in the metropolitan area 25 The report must address goals for safety, environmental impact, 26 and service, including around access and the airport capacity 27 required to maintain and enhance service levels to other states 28 and countries and to nonmetropolitan areas of the state 29 (e) By January 1, 1993, the council shall report to the 30 legislature on policies for the reuse of the existing maior 31 airport site should a new maior airport be developed 32 ~f) At least 60 days before~submitting a re ort to the 33 legislature, the council shall submit a draft of the report to 34 the state advisory council created by section 6, for review and 35 comment This 2 ,~ ~~. • ~'i. \ ~ 03/15/89 [REVISOR ) HMW/CF 89-2600 : ~ , •s, / ~' 1 Sec. 2. [473.616) [COMPREHENSIVE AIRPORT PLANNING.} / 2 Subdivision 1. [WOLD-CHAMBERLAIN PLAN.J (a) By January 1, q 3 1991, the commission shall adopt a long-term comprehensive plan . . 4 for the international airport at its existing location. The 5 plan must describe: G~:>• {•, _. 6 (L) aviation demand; 7 (2) airport capacity limits and potential; 8 (3) facilities requirements; 9 (4) a plan for physical development, including financial 10 estimates and a tentative development schedule; f' 11 (5) airport operational characteristics; 12 ~6) compatibility with metropolitan and local physical ~' 13 facility systems; ~. , C. - 14 (7) environmental effects; ~: >; y 15 (6) safety; and 4 $-= 16 (9) the effect on the neighboring communities. t 17 The plan must satisfy air transportation needs, as projected by 18 the council, for a prospective 20-near period. At the same i 19 time, the commission shall prepare a concept plan for the 20 airport, including an estimate of facilities requirements, to 21 satisfy air transportation needs, as projected by the council, 22 for an additional ten-year period. The plans must be updated at 23 least every five years. The plans must be amended as necessary ~ 24 to reflect chanoes in trends and conditions, facilities - - i 25 requirements, and development plans and schedules. The plans ~ ,; 26 are subject to sections 473.165 and 473.611. i ~:, 27 (b) The council may not a prove the comprehensive plan ~: 28 required by this subdivision until the commission has completed 29 the conceptual design plan required by subdivision 2. 30 ~c) Until January 1, 1996, or until the commission has 31 completed the activities required by subdivision 3 and section 32 3, whichever occurs first, the commission may not begin 33 construction of a new runway. 39 Until January 1, 1996, or until the commission has 35 completed the activities required by subdivision 3 and section 36 3, whichever occurs first, the commission may construct a new, ~ ~ / , 03/15/89 [REVISOR J HMW/CF 89-2600 ~` 1 /,, 1 expanded, or relocated terminal Facility if the commission 2 determines, by resolution containing findings of fact and 3 conclusions, following a public hearing on the project, that 4 construction of the facility is necessary and prudent, 5 considering the current and projected demand for service and 6 related capacity requirements, and, consistent with a potential 7 legislative decision promptly followin the re orts required 8 under subdivision 3 and section 3, that the commission should 9 proceed forthwith to acquire and construct a new airport 10 The commission shall contract with the state office of 11 administrative hearin s for the services of an administrative 12 law judge to conduct and report on the hearing The re ort of 13 the administrative law iud a to the commission shall contain 14 findings of fact and conclusions. 15 Subd. 2. (NEW AIRPORT; CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY AND 16 PLAN.J By February 1, 1990, the commission, in consultation with 17 the council, shall complete a study of facilities requirements, 18 airport functioning, and conceptual design for a maior new 19 airport in the metropolitan area Hy January 1, 1991, the 20 .commission shall complete a conceptual desi n plan for a maior 21 new airport. The council shall use the study and design plan in 22 evaluating areas for locating a new airport under section 1, 23 subdivision 3. 24 Subd. 3. [NEW AIRPORT; SITE SELECTION; COMPREHENSIVE 25 PLAN.J Within four years following the council's designation~of 26 a search area under section 1, the commission shall• (1) select 27 a site for a maior new airport in the search area designated by 28 the council; (2) prepare a comprehensive plan and schedule for 29 the development of a ma or airport at that site, for a 30 prospective 20-year period following a decision to develop a new 31 airport; (3) prepare an estimate of facilities requirements and 32 a concept plan for development of the airport for an additional 33 ten years; and (4) prepare and submit for administrative review 34 the environmental documents that are required for site 35 acquisition. 36 Subd. 4. [LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.) ~a) Until the activities ;' 4 ~ , ~; 03/15/89 (REVISOR J HMW/CF 89-2600 1 required by subdivision 3 and section 3 are completed, the 2 commission shall re ort to the legislature ~ January 1 of each y y , , e Comm ss on s a report to the 25 legislature on the condeptual design studv for a maior new 26 airport, prepared under subdivision 2. Sy January 1, 1991, the 27 commission shall report to the legislature on the conceptual 28 design plan prepared under subdivision 2. 29 jd) At least 60 days before submitting a report to the 30 legislature, the commission shall submit a draft of the. report 31 to the advisory council created by section 6, for review and 32 comment. This requirement does not apply to the report under 33 paragraph (a). 34 Sec. 3. [473.618) [AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 35 REPORT.) 36 ~ January 1, 1996, the metropolitan council and the 14 (5) lease agreements and user char es at a new airport; •• 15 (6) the availability for new airport planning and ti 16 development of public funds raised through user charges at the • 17 current airport; 18 {7) methods of capturing for public uses a portion of the ~ r 19 revenue from development around a new airport; and 20 (8) other similar matters. ~I,; 21 ~ February 1, 1990, the commission shall submit to the 22 legislature a progress report on the report required by this 23 paragraph. 24 (c) B Februar 1 1990 th i i h 11 i 13 operations; 3 year on the results of the airport plannin activities of the 4 commission under this section. 5 (b) Hy January 1, 1991, the commission shall report to the 6 legislature on financial planning for a ma 'or new airport The 7 report shall address: 8 S1) Cost; 9 (2) financing methods; 10 ~3) cost allocation issues; 11 (4) methods of ensuring full amortization of maior 12 improvements at the existing airport before a transfer of ,- >>~~~~ 03/15/89 (REVISOR ] HMW/CF 89-2600 + ~ ., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 airports commission shall report to the legislature on the long-range planning and development of maior air ort facilities in the metropolitan area. The report must include the recommendations of the agencies on acauirin a site for a mai new airport and on maior airport development in the metropolit~. area for a prospective 30-year period At least 60 days before submitting the report to the legislature, the agencies shall submit the report to the advisory council created by section E, for review and comment. Sec. 4. [473.619] [PLANNING ADMINISTRATION.] Subdivision 1. [INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT.] The metropolita:. 2 council and the airports commission shall enter into an 3 intergovernmental agreement by May 1, 1969 The agreement muss establish a process. and agency responsibilities for comprehensive and coordinated plannin for maior airport development, consistent with the requirements of this section and sections 1 to 3. The agreement must establish a ioint committee composed of board members of the two agencies to oversee implementation of the a reement Subd. 2. (SCOPE OF WORK REPORT.] The metropolitan council and the airports commission shall prepare a sco a of work report that describes the eneral scope and schedule of work and the topics to be addressed in the plannin and study tasks required of the agencies under sections 1 to 3 By July 1, 1989, the report must be submitted to the advisory council created by section 6, for review and comment. Subd. 3. [FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.) T_he metropolitan Council and the airports commission shall apply for and make maximum use of available federal fundin for their activities under sections 1 to 3. Subd. 4. [CONSULTATION.] The metropolitan council and the airports commission shall prepare the plans and reports under sections 1 to 3 in consultation with each other, the commissioner of trans ortation, the federal aviation administration, industr re resentatives, and other interested persons. 03/15/89 1 Subd. 5. (AIRPORTS COMMISSION; PLANNING 2 ADMINISTRATION.] The airports commission shall appoint a deputy 3 director for comprehensive airport planning and development. 4 The responsibilities of the position should not include 5 operations. 6 Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 473.621, 7 subdivision la, is amended to read: '~ b Subd. la. [RELATIONSHIP TO LEGISLATURE.) The commission- 9 shall be held accountable to the legislature in its activities, 10 plans, policies, and programs. It shall report each session. to 11 appropriate committees of the legislature as to its activities, ' 12 plans, policies, and programs and shall make other reports and. 13 recommendations which the legislature or its committees deem.. 14 appropriate. the-eenunissien-sha}}-adopt-a-}eng-tern: 15 comprehensive-p}an-fer-the-Minneepe}is-Str-Pen}-~nternetiena~ b 16 Airports--the-p}en-:nest-describes-in-the-degree-ef-deter}-thet '17 the-eonunfssien-deenes-epprepriete-fer-at-}east-e-prespeetive 18 ten-year-periedT-the-fe}}eMing- 19 f}}-evietien-demand; 20 f~~-nirpert-eepeeityT-ine}ading-env.irenmente}j-ranerey= 21 termine}T-and-ether-Teeters-re}evant-te-eepeeity; 22 f3~j-a-p}en-and-fineneia}-estimates-fer-physiea} -- 23 deve}eptnent; I 24 t4;-airport-eperetiene}-ehnreeteristies; ' 25 f5~-eempetibi}ity-erith-the-enpneity-ef-neetrepe}iten-end 26 }eea}-physiee}-feel}ity-systenes; - 27 f6;-envirenmente}-effects;-nnd 28 f9~-the-effect-en-the-neighboring-eenunttnitiesr 29 !he-p}en-nenst-be-setbneitted-te-the-}egis}etnre-by-eeee:nber-3}s 30 }9BBs-end-be-npdeted-et-}cost-every-five-years-thereeftbrr--Y'he 31 p}en-is-snbjeet-te-sections-493.-}65-nnd-433.-6}}; 32 Sec. 6. [STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL.] 33 Subdivision~l. [ESTABLISHMENT.] The state advisory council 34 on metropolitan airport planning is established. 35 Subd. 2. [AUTHORITY; DUTIES.) ~a) The advisory council , 36 shall review and comment on the scope of work report required by 7 ..~G: ~- ~ ~=- (REVISOR ] HMW/CF 89-2600 j~ 03/15/89 [REVISOR ] HMW/CF 89-2600 .~r ~ 3~ 1 section 4, subdivision 2. „~-'~ 2 ~ The advisory council shall review and comment on the 3 reports to the legislature required by section 1, subdivision 4, 4 section 2, subdivision 4, and section 3. 5 (c) The advisory council may conduct public meetings on the 6 reports to inform the public and solicit opinion. 7 (d) The advisory council may request interim briefin s on 8 work in progress. 9 Subd. 3. [MEMBERSHIP.] The members of the advisorv council - s,; 10 are• _ f;`' 11 ~1) three members of the senate and three members of the 12 house of representatives, appointed by the customazy appointing 13 authority in each house; 14 (2) the commissioners of transportation, planning the 15 pollution control agency, and trade and economic development, or 16 their designees; 17 ~3) two metropolitan council members, appointed by the 18 metropolitan council, at least one from a district directly 19 affected by the international airport; 2U ~4) two members of the metropolitan airports commission, 21 appointed by the airports commission, at least one from a 22 district directly affected by the international airport; 23 (5) two representatives of the aviation industry, appointed 24 ~ the metropolitan council; 25 ~6)__two local elected officials, one appointed by the 26 league of Minnesota cities from a nonmetropolitan city with 27 commercial air service, the other appointed by the association 28 of metropolitan municipalities from a metropolitan city; and 29 (7) a representative of the federal aviation administration 30 and persons representing members of Con ress from the state, 31 serving ex officio. 32 Members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority 33 Subd. 4. [CHAIRS.] The legislative appointing authorities 34 shall each designate a legislative appointee to serve as a 35 co-chair of the advisorv council 36 Subd• 5. [ADMINISTRATION.) On the request of the advisorv , 03/15/89 (REVISOR J HMW C ~ / / F 89-2600. i council, legislative staff offices and the state and ' 2 metropolitan agencies represented on the advisorv council shall 3 provide administrative and staff assistance 4 Subd. 6. [TERMINATION.] The advisorv council ceases•to 5 exist when the actions required by section 2, subdivision 3, and 6 section 3 are completed.. 7 Sec. 7. [APPLICATION.) 8 This act applies in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, ' 9 Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington ' ~; - c ~,: ra ~. ~' ~ ~., ,~,; ., I • ~, ~ • ~. +}~ • r h I ~: 9 :•.. ; , ,. ,. -A.~--.- _ ~ s- ~s SUMMARY OF TT10-5 (soon-to-be HF1336)' Generally, TT10-5 is very similar to the idea for a bill, previously distributed, titled "Metropolitan Airports .Planning Bill, Statement of the Problem". I expect HF1336 to be very similar to the draft TT10-5. The draft TT10-5 was easier for me to understand once I put it in timeline form. It is enclosed. Summary _ - The draft creates. an Advisory Council to oversee and coordinate -_ the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The Advisory Council reviews and comments on the MC and MAC studies and reports before they are presented to the legislature. The Advisory Council can also hold its own public meetings to inform the .public as well as solicit the public's opinion. The draft also requires specific reports and plans from the MC and MAC. The draft also sets deadlines for the reports and plans. Deadlines keep things on schedule. On schedule for what? It seems an inevitable, new airport. The MC and MAC would be required to annually update the legislature on aviation planning progress. The significant drawback? Much of the draft is written with the assumption a new airport will be built. The draft should not be so quick to endorse that assumption. Major Difference Emerging from the Idea to the Draft Advisory Council Membership: 1) Neither MAC appointee need be one of the two mayoral MAC appointee. 2) The elected official from the metro area shall be appointed by the Association of • Metropolitan Municipalities (instead of the Met Council). 3) An FAA representative is added as an ex officio member. The draft generally goes into greater detail about each element of the idea. -~~ TT10-5 Will Become HF1336 ~ Introduced by Rep. Ann Wynia Referred to House Transportation Committee (The following are based on the sections & subdivisions of TT10- 5.) Abbreviations - MC Metropolitan .Council MAC Metropolitan Airports Commission L Minnesota State Legislature AC Advisory Council ** Denotes Important Step Taken DATE GOVERNOR SIGNS HF1336 INTO LAW >K>K 6.1 18 Member Advisory Council created. 6.2.a.&b. AC reviews & comments on MC & MAC studies and reports. 6.2.c. AC can conduct public meetings to inform public & solicit opinions.. MAY 1, 1989 5.1 MAC & MC enter into an intergovernmental agreement for comprehensive and coordinated planning. JULY 1, 1989 * ~: 5.2 MAC & MC prepare a scope-of-work report & submit i~ to AC for review & comment. (by) DECEMBER 3, 1989 T- ~7 ~ ~ 1.4.f. MC submits to AC a report on: forecasting methods, protecting search area from uncomplementary development, and aviation goals. -~-* 2.4.d. MAC submits to AC a report on financial planning & conceptual design study for a major new airport. v JANUARY 1, 1990 t 1.1 MC assesses trends affecting. major airport development in next 30 yrs. 1.4.a. MC reports to L on its aviation planning. 2.4.a. MAC reports to L on its aviation planning. FEBRUARY 1. 1990 `/ 1.2 MC amends its aviation chapter for major airport development alternatives for next 30 yrs. a..: ~o'~ 1.4.b. MC reports to L on "assumptions & methods" it will use ;-~ for forecasting demand & capacity needs. ii v~ 1.4.c. MC reports to L with recommendations to protect a search ~ area from uncomplementary development. Q ~ ---> 1.4.d. MC reports to L on aviation goals, including: safety, environmental impact, & service. V 2.2 MAC completes a study on facilities requirements, airport functioning & conceptual design. ---~ 2.4.b. MAC submits to L a progress report on financial planning report, due 1-1-91. `'~ 2.4.c. MAC reports to L on conceptual design study. Plan is due 1-1-91. JANUARY 1,1991 1.1 MC assesses trends affecting major airport development in next 30 yrs. 1.4.a. MC reports to L on its aviation planning. 2.4.a. MAC reports to L on its aviation planning_ 2.1.a. MAC adopts long-term Comprehensive Plan. Plan must meet MC's projected transportation needs for 20 yrs. Separate Plan prepared for additional 10 yrs. (To be updated at least every 5 yrs.) ~~ 2.2 MAC completes conceptual design Plan; MC to use it in evaluating areas as search areas. 2.4.b. MAC reports to L on financial planning for major new airport. 2.4.c. MAC reports to L on conceptual design plan. ~ JANUARY 1, 1992 1.1 MC assesses trends affecting major airport development in next 30 yrs. 1.4.a. MC reports to L on its aviation planning. 2.4.a. MAC reports to L on its aviation planning. ~c* 1.3 MC designates a search area in metropolitan area for major new airport. NOVEMBER 2. 1992 ~ 1.4.f. MC submits to AC report on reusing existing MSP site should a new airport be developed. '~"'~ JANUARY 1, 1993 L~ o' ~` 1.1 MC assesses trends affecctin ma or air ort develo ment in ~! 9 j P P ~~ next 30 yrs. N.. 1.4.a. MC reports to L on its aviation planning. a~ 2.4.a. MAC reports to L on its aviation planning. 1.4.e. MC reports to L on policies for reusing MSP site should new major airport be developed. JANUARY 1, 1994 1.1 MC assesses trends affecting major airport development in next 30 yrs. 1.4.a. MC reports to L on its aviation planning. 2.4.a. .MAC reports to L on its aviation planning. JANUARY 1, 1995 1.1 MC assesses trends affecting major airport development in next 30 yrs. 1.4.a. MC reports to L on its aviation planning. 2.4.a. MAC reports to L on its aviation planning. z ~~ ~ Eby) NOVEMBER 2, 1995 3. MC & MAC submit to AC reports on acquiring a site for a major new airport & its development in metro area for 30 yrs. JANUARY 1, 1996 1.1 MC assesses trends affecting major airport develo'~ment in next 30 yrs. 1.4.a. MC reports to L on its aviation planning. v7i( 2.4.a. MAC reports to L on its aviation planning. o ~`'~ ~ 2.1.c. MAC may begin construction of a new runway, terminal, ~~ terminal expansion or relocation with a capital cost of over $25 .million with MC approval. ~' •~ 2.3. MAC 1) selects a site in search area; 2) prepares a ~~ comprehensive plan & schedule for developing major airport on t,,~; site for 20 yrs.; 3) prepares plan for additiona1:10 yrs on ~v' facilities requirements & concept plan; & 4) prepare & submit _- environmental documents necessary for site acquisition. 3. MC & MAC report to L on site acquisition & major airport development in metro area for 30 yrs. -- JANUARY 2, 1996 6.6 AC ceases to exist. JANUARY 1, 1997 AND EVERY FOLLOWING JANUARY 1st 1.1 MC assesses trends affecting major airport development in next 30 yrs. PROBLEMS W/TT10-5 2.4.b. Assumes new airport needed. 1.4.c. Recommendations to protect a/the (?) search area Feb. 1, 1990. (Area not selected until January 1, 1992.) .~_ z v OFFICE OF CITY COllNC3L 307 CITY HALL MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 PHONE: 348-221 1 STEVE CRAMER COUNCIL :MEMBER ELEVENTH WARD ~af~~ o~ 0~[~~ March 17, 1989 Mayor Steve Quam City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield,~Mi~nnesot 5323 Dear Mater'' Quam: I read with interest the article describing additional study you will be funding regarding MSP and its future. I hope the study will add in a constructive way to the important debate that has been occurring about the airport and its relation not only to our communities, but to the state's economic future. Minneapolis also has a budget item for an airport-related study in 1989. My plan is to move forward with a better analysis than has been completed to date of the re-use potential of the acreage at MSP should the facility move. The economic stimulus from re-development of those 3100 acres could be considerable for my city and yours. We need that information as the airport discussion moves along. I would be interested in your reaction to this approach, and would also welcome your participation. Before the lines are drawn too clearly between and among cities near MSP on the airport issues we now confront, I would like to re-commit to our previous policy of open communication and cooperation. The study I am suggesting, and perhaps yours, gives us that chance. SC:ar cc: Mayor Fraser Mayor Latimer Si nc,~~ly eve u~amer uncil Member, 11th Ward TTY/VOICE (612) 348-2157 ., ~}. .~ DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 -2/ City of Richfield Airport Attitudes Study Version 1.1 Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing this part of the Metropolitan Area. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential and only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. 1. Approximately how long have you resided at your. current address? LESS THAN ONE YEAR......1 ONE OR TWO YEARS........2 THREE TO FIVE YEARS.....3 SIX TO TEN YEARS........4. ELEVEN TO TWENTY YEARS..S OVER TWENTY YEARS.......6 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......? First, as you may know, the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport has been in the news lately. 2. Could you tell me what you know about the situation concerning the Airport? (PROBE) Anything else? As you may know, there have been recent discussions about expanding the capacity of the current airport by constructing a . new runway and purchasing land for a new airport site. Anew .~ airport would be built on that site and the current airport would ` be closed. 3. From what you have heard, how VERY LIKELY .............1 ,~ likely do you feel it is that SOMEWHAT LIKELY.........2 _ the airport will move from its NOT TOO LIKELY.........3 current location --.-very likely, NOT AT ALL LIKELY......~4 somewhat likely, not too likely, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5 or not at all likely? :• _ 4. From what you have heard,`when NEXT TWO YEARS......:...1 would a new airport be functioning 2 - 5 YEARS.::..:......2 -- during the next two ,.years, in 6 - 10 YEARS..:.::.....3 ~. - two to five years, six`to ten it - 20 YEARS..:..:....4 years, eleven to twenty years, or OVER TWENTY YEARS.......5 not for at least twenty years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6 1 ~- ~, i- 5. What do you like most about having the airport in its present location? 6. What do you like least about having the airport in its present location? 7. Do you support or oppose the STRONGLY SUPPORT........1 moving of the Minneapolis-Saint SUPPORT .................2 Paul International Airport to OPPOSE ..................3 another site? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) STRONGLY OPPOSE.........4 And do you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5 IF OPINION IS STATED IN QUESTION #7, ASK: 8. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? 9. If the airport were to move elsewhere, what do you feel the benefits for this local area would be? (PROBE) 10. How about costs? Do you see any costs to this area if the, airport moves? .... ,. 11. And, do you feel the benefits to BENEFITS GREATER..:.... °:1 ~ : ' ' -~-: - area or the costs to the area COSTS GREATER..........~2 -- would be greater if the airport ABOUT EQUAL (VOL.)...'...3 ~. were to move elsewhere? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4 ... .. .. I would like to read you some `arguments both for and against the .construction of a new airport. For each one, please tell me if ~'it makes you much more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support moving the facility - from its current site. If an argument has no impact on your views, just say so.... 2 ,~ MUCH SMWT SMWT MUCH MORK-MORE N.D. LESS LESS 12. The location of a new airport would be at least thirty miles away from its current site. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Anew airport would permit the region to meet growing expected demand on air travel in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 14. While the federal government provides funds for the con- struction of the airport, the State of Minnesota would day to _ build all newly required infra- , structure, such as roads and . sewers. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Anew and larger airport would allow Northwest Airlines to expand its operations into _ and out of the area. 1 2 3 4 5 16. The move of the airport would severely jeopardize jobs in ~ airport-related industries in . this area. 1 2 ` 3 4 5 17. The move of the airport would hurt current hotel and eating establishments on the "Bloom- - ington Strip." 1 2 3 4 5 18. 'The current airport site could be converted to commercial and office developments after a new airport opens elsewhere. 1 2 3 4 5 19. Amore distant airport could negatively impact the vitality and businesses of Downtown __;, ~ .: ~ ~" . , .: ~: r a 3 ,4 .._ 5 Minneapolis. ~-~.~1 ~-~~w2 :: ~~ ~~-~~ a.,.. ~, ~s "'.r r .mow:: h i~ ~ 3 '.. _ <: -.._ ..... 20. Is there any one or two arguments ~that'~lyou~'hade~ ljust .heard which you find particularly persuasive?_,'~_(IF :"YES,"_ASK: ) `- ... Which ones? - :~.h ~~a ~ :., ,. ; :. . ~- - - ;: , ,~ ~ wya ~ , _ _ 3 21. How do you feel about moving the airport after hearing these argu- ments? Do you support or oppose the moving of the Minneapolis- Saint Paul International Airport to another site? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? `~ STRONGLY SUPPORT........1 SUPPORT .................2 OPPOSE ..................3 STRONGLY OPPOSE.........4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5 One possible alternative to moving the airport from its current location is the construction of an additional runway to handle more arriving and departing air traffic. 22. Are you aware of any plans to build a new runway at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Inter- , national Airport? / 23. Do you favor or oppose the proposal to construct a new runway at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport to . expand its capacity? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly that way? AWARE ...................1 NOT AWARE ...............2 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3 STRONGLY FAVOR..........1 FAVOR ...................2 OPPOSE ..................3 STRONGLY OPPOSE.........4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5 - Suppose the State of Minnesota had two construction options for a new runway: OPTION A, if~built, would effectively meet all future demand needs. But, to construct it would require the purchase and razing of an existing residential neighborhood. OPTION B, if built, would meet only some of the projected future demand; however, it could be built without acquiring property in any existing neighborhoods. 24. If you could choose, would you OPTION A ................1 prefer OPTION A or OPTION B to OPTION B ................2 be followed? BOTH (VOL.) ..............3 NEITHER (VOL.)..........4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......5 For many residents of the area, the noise from the take-off and ~;. landing of jets is bothersome. 25. How serious do you feel the noise VERY SERIOUS...........:1 of arriving and departing jet SOMEWHAT SERIOUS........2 aircraft is -- very serious, ~ NOT AT ALL SERIOUS......3 somewhat serious, or not at all DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....".4 serious? 26. During the past few years, do IMPROVED ................1~ ~: ., you feel that the noise from ABOUT THE SAME..........2 ~-. the airport has improved, re- WORSENED ................3 mained about the same, or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4 worsened? 4 .^ Federal standards will require all airlines to use Stage Three aircraft by 1999. Currently, several begun to phase these aircraft into their fleets. 27. Have you noticed any differences in the amount of noise generated by different types of aircraft, as opposed to the use of various runways or altitudes of the airplane as they fly over? T_Ls newer, quieter airlines have YES, NOTICED............1 NO, UNNOTICED...........2 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3 28. Have the recently imposed noise IMPROVED ................1 abatement procedures adopted by NO IMPACT ...............2 aircraft on take-off improved or WORSENED ................3 ' worsened the noise situation, or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4 have they had little impact? 29. How about the noise sharing system adopted by the airport have you noticed a 'significant increase or decrease in the frequency with which you are bothered, or hasn't it made much difference? INCREASE ................1 -- NO DIFFERENCE...........2 DECREASE ................3 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4 30. If it is announced that either the airport will be moved to another location, or that a runway expansion will be made at the present site, will any decisions you make about the future be affected? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? ~ (PROBE) 31. If the airport is not moved, but MORE LIKELY .............1 expanded at its current site, NO DIFFERENCE...........2 will you be more likely or less LESS LIKELY ..............3 likely to remain at your current DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......4 residence? 32. If the airport is moved to a site .MORE LIKELY .............1 _~_~ _ further from the city, will you NO DIFFERENCE...........2 more likely of less likely to -LESS LIKELY.......~......3 4 remain at your current residence? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....: Now, just a few questions for demographic purposes.... 33. Do you own or rent your current OWN ...................:.1 residence? RENT ....................2 REFUSED .................3 5 34. About how frequently did members of this household fly in or out of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport last year -- none, once or twice, every couple of months, monthly, or at least weekly? 35. Are there any people over the age of 65 living in this household? 36. Are there any school-aged or pre-school children living in this household? 37. What is your age, please? (READ CATEGORIES) .~. -Z.L NONE ....................1 ONCE/TWICE ..............2 COUPLE OF MONTHS........3 MONTHLY .................4 AT LEAST WEEKLY.........5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6 YES .....................1 NO ......................2 REFUSED .................3 YES ...:.................1 NO ......................2 REFUSED .................3 18-24 ...................1 25-34 ...................2 35-44 ...................3 45-54 ...................4 55-64 ...................5 65 AND OVER...........,..6 REF'USED .:...............7 - 38. What is the occupation of the head of this household? 39. Do any members of this household YES .....................1. work in an airport-related job or NO ......................2 for a business relying heavily on DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3 the airport? 40. Are you or is any member of this YES .....................1 household a member of a labor NO ......................2 union? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3 41. What is the last grade of school you completed? . _ 42.`-Could you tell me your approxi- mate pre-tax yearly income. Does the income lie between.... (READ CATEGORIES) LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL.. ..1 HIGH SCHOOL GRAD........2 VO-TECH SCHOOL..........3 SOME COLLEGE............4 COLLEGE GRAD............5 POST-GRADUATE...........6 ~; REFUSED .:...........:...? - UNDER $12,500...........1 . _.• $12,500-$25,000.........2 $25,001-$37,500.........3 $37,501-$50,000.........4- ~: $50,001-$62,500.........5 _:~:.. OVER $62,500............6 DONUT KNOW ......::......? REFUSED........."........8 6 ,~. w y 43. Gender. (BY OBSERVATION) IF "FEMALE," ASK: Do you work outside of the home? Thank you very much for your time. Z~i~ MAT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FEMALE/AT HOME..........2 FEMALE/OUTSIDE..........3 LIST TELEPHONE NUMBER DATE INTERVIEWER 7 ,~,, .- Z Y Comments on the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet and the Draft Scoping Decision Document for the Proposed Extension of Runway 4/22 at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport March 30, 1989 The City of Richfield appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Scoping environmental assessment worksheet and the draft Scoping decision document for the proposed extension of Runway 4/22 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The ultimate purpose of this assessment is to determine the environmental impact of the proposed 4/22 extension. The Environmental Assessment Statement process includes: a). Study of significant environmental effects. b). Consideration of alternatives. c). Exploration of methods to reduce any potentially adverse environmental impacts. Given that background, the City of Richfield believes it is necessary to expand the scope of the environmental review to .~ ,~„ L consider options which accomplish the objectives of this project other than extension of 4/22. It is also necessary to review the environmental impact of one of the stated purposes of the project. The stated purposes of this project are to increase the use and effectiveness of the preferential runway system and to provide additional runway space for long haul international air carrier aircraft. The EIS must consider alternatives that will accomplish both these objectives and reduce environmental impact. While the environmental worksheet argues that the two project objectives can only be accomplished through the extension of 4/22, clearly that is not the case. The alternatives that should be studied include: - Extension of the approach end of runway 29L and 11R by 1,000 feet. - Permanent installation of the recent 180 day runway test. - Equal consideration and study of runway 4-22 extension to the northeast. The most fundamental question relating to this proposed improvement is the objective to increase the use and effectiveness of the preferential runway system. The local PRS system was originated over 15 years ago and does not satisfactorily meet the problem of runway usage in 1989. It was the product of political compromises and has become institutionalized as untouchable. / r ~/J To our knowledge, no effort has been made to conduct an environmental assessment of the PRS. More effective methods to distribute noise, such as the runway use developed for the 60 day test period must be considered. To proceed with an EIS without specifically considering environmental impact of the PRS as designed, would produce a flawed and incomplete environmental impact statement. Since we do not know if the PRS is environmentally sound, considering improvements which would further the use of the PRS is inappropriate without such an examination. If the true purpose of the environmental impact statement is to be fulfilled, the scope of the environmental review should be expanded accordingly. The City of Richfield will provide further written comments to support our position. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No.=2,2- Agenda August 7, 1989 Issue Statement: Discussion of Suggested Changes in Scheduling and Procedures for Appointment and Reappointment to City Boards and Commissions Background• Staff has reviewed the schedules and procedures for commission appointments and reappointments. Several problems have been identified by Council and staff. Those problems include: 1. Some members who served three terms are not, or were not, aware of the Council resolution limiting members to three consecutive terms on a commission. 2. Terms expire on January 31. Some commissions need to delay annual elections of officers, which are usually conducted in February, until new and old members become familiar with each other. 3. Even though members whose terms expire are expected to serve until a replacement is appointed, some commissions lack a quorum for February meetings. 4. Some projects may be delayed until all new members are appointed and have an opportunity to become familiar with their duties and responsibilities. 5. Applicants are disappointed when vacancies are advertised, interviews held and then incumbents are reappointed to the vacancy. 6. Commission members, especially chairpersons, are not provided training in the conduct of meetings. Some commission members have expressed frustration with the way in which meetings are conducted. Recommendation: 1. October - first week. City Manager's office contacts members whose terms will expire to determine if they seek reappointment. At the same time, members who have served three consecutive terms will be advised they are ineligible for reappointment. 2. October - second week. Departments will provide City Manager' office with attendance records for all commission members for the past 12 months. 3. October - Friday, second week. The following information will be forwarded to the Council: d / A. Terms which will expire. B. Members who seek reappointment, and their attendance record. C. Members who are not eligible for reappointment. D. Members who have had poor attendance records and who the Council might wish to replace. 4. October - third week. Council holds special Council meeting to which commission chairs are invited. The purpose of this meeting will be to determine who the Council and chairs recommend be reappointed, and to receive the input of the chairs on prospective new members. 5. October 31 - Council notifies City Manager's office which members will be reappointed. 6. November - second week. Vacancies are advertised in the Sun Current and cable channel 34. Depending on Council direction, the advertisements would: A. Not advertise those vacancies for which members will be reappointed. B. All vacancies are advertised. 7. Deadline for submission of applications would be the second Friday in December. 8. December - third Monday. Applicants are sent letters scheduling interviews with the City Council. 9. December - last week. Interviews with applicants are held. 10. January - first meeting. Appointments are made. Orientation Program and Materials Provided to New Members: Depending upon the commission, new members are provided with varying materials. Each department provides the information to the particular commission with which they are involved. The following .are the basic materials: 1. Member roster. 2. Commission minutes for a minimum of past six months. 3. Commission bylaws. 4. Resolution establishing commission. 5. Pertinent information about special programs, projects, or studies involving the commission. In addition to the above, each commission chair should be provided with a copy of Robert's Rules of Order, commission member ethics, and organizational charts. •~~. A training session for chairpersons. and new members could be held each year. Commissions and boards would have to coordinate their bylaws to make sure their elections occurred at the same time. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The recommendations will address existing problems regarding commission appointments and procedures. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Change the expiration date of commission terms to June 30 or July 31. A. Verify member reappointments during the month of March, advertise and interview during the months of April and May. B. Appointments made at first Council meeting in June. 2. Keep the expiration date at January 31, and proceed as follows: A. December - first week. City Manager's, office contacts members whose terms expire to determine if they seek reappointment. At the same time, members who have served three consecutive terms will be advised they are ineligible for reappointment. B. December - first week. Departments provide City Manager's office with commission member attendance records for past year. C. December - Friday, second week. The following information will be forwarded to Council: - Terms which will expire. - Members seeking reappointment, and their attendance record. - Which members are not eligible for reappointment. D. December - Advertisements are placed in the Richfield Sun, Your City & Schools, and cable channel 34. Deadline for submission of applications is December 31. Advertisement should also include the date(s) Council will interview candidates. (Third week of January-at least two evenings). E. January - first week. Letters are sent to applicants and commission chairs scheduling interviews for third week of January. F. January - third week. Interviews held. d ~- G. January - second council meeting. Appointments are made. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the August 7 study session agenda to give Council Members an opportunity to discuss any changes they wish to make in the commission/board selection process. Respectfull submitted, James Prosser City M ager JDP/ej a ~` CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 21 Agenda, August 7, 1989 Issue Statement: Consideration of a proposal to survey New Fordtown and Rich Acres residents. Background• On June 13, 1989, the City held a public information session for New Fordtown and Rich Acres residents. The purpose of the information session was to discuss the proposal for redesignating land use in New Fordtown and along Cedar, from residential to various commercial classifications. The proposal did not include a recommendation to change land use designation for Rich Acres. There were approximately 200 people present at that public hearing. Of those providing testimony, it appeared that a majority favored the recommendation. However, the recommendation was controversial and there was opposition to the proposal. Several individuals providing testimony recommended that the city conduct a survey within the New Fordtown, Rich Acres area, to find out what the residents think about the proposal. Decision Resources Ltd., has provided a proposal to survey New Fordtown and Rich Acres residents. This survey would cost less than 52,000. Since the cost is less than $2,000, Council action would not be required on the expenditure. The concept of a selected survey for a small portion of the community is very sensitive and Council review is appropriate. The proposed survey would provide an opportunity for residents within Rich Acres and New Fordtown to provide their general comments regarding the proposal. The survey would be mailed to each household within New Fordtown and Rich Acres with a prepaid return envelope. This survey would not be statistically valid. The mailing package would include a cover letter, self-contained questionnaire and postage paid envelope. The questions would be the open-ended variety, to permit respondents to explain themselves more fully. The instrument would contain a maximum of ten questions and ideally printable on two sides of a folded 11 x 17 inch sheet. Staff Recommendation: Authorize survey of New Fordtown and Rich Acres residents, at a cost including postage, of approximately $2,000. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposal for redesignating land use in New Fordtown and Rich Acres is an extremely sensitive issue, residents should feel that they have had the opportunity to be heard on this issue. The survey would provide this opportunity, in addition to the community meeting. Community .meetings may limit input since some residents feel inhibited in r~ ~-~ contributing comments during those meetings. 2. The cost of the survey is reasonable. 3. The cover letter will clearly indicate that the purpose of the survey is not to conduct a referendum on the re- designation issue, but to receive comments for consideration prior to action. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City could elect not to survey the residents because of the possible precedent that this might present. 2. The result of the survey will not be .statistically valid, and may be misleading. 3. The Council has ultimate responsibility for determining policy regarding land use issues. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the administrative meeting of August 7, 1989. Re fully submitted, J D. Prosser C t Manager JDP:sae ~~. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 20 Agenda August 7, 1989 Issue Statement: Presentation of the 1988 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Background The City's•1988 financial audit has been completed by the firm of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells. Data on year-end 1988 has previously been presented to the City Council in April as prescribed by the City Charter. This presentation by the Auditors is meant to be an informal discussion of the 1988 year-end report. Formal receipt of the Financial Report will be scheduled for August 14, 1989. Recommended Motion: No formal action is being recommended at this time. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The financial audit and formal report of the 1988 fiscal year has been completed. 2. Presentation of the report at a Study Session provides an opportunity for more in-depth discussion of the report. Alternative Recommendation: The Study Session discussion of this item could be omitted and presented at a regular City Council meeting. Discussion/Decision .Mode: Consideration of this item at the August 7, 1989 Study Session will expedite the formal receipt of the 1988 Financial Report at a future City Council meeting. Respec~ully submitted, Ja es D. Prosser 'ty Manager JDP:eja ~/ CITY OF RICHFIELD Study Session Letter No. 19 Agenda, August 7, 1989 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: o MAC Commissioner. Altman "Joe" Gasper has resigned as chair of the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Advisory Board to become the new MAC Commissioner for Precinct 8. Precinct 8 covers Minneapolis (south of Hwy. 12) and Richfield. Mr. Gasper lives in south Minneapolis, in Council Member Steve Cramer's district. Mr. Gasper replaces Burton Joseph. ® Advisory Council to the Legislature. An airports planning bill was passed this past legislative session. The bill creates an Advisory Council to provide input to and clearance for the MAC and Metropolitan Council's dual- track plan. (See attached memorandum for appointment descriptions.) Currently, four public member appointments to the Advisory Council remain open. ~ Common Runway Use Goals for Suburban Cities. Staff continues to meet with representatives from airport noise impacted cities, including: Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan and Mendota Heights. The group has drafted a position paper outlining changes which need to be made to make MSP Airport more compatible with surrounding cities (see attachment). ® MASAC's Analysis of Runway Use System (RUS) Data. MASAC's Special Operations Committee in continuing to review the RUS results. Under the RUS, different areas were impacted by noise than under the PRS. Don Preibe, MASAC Representative, intends to open up the question of the desirability of the PRS at the next Special Operations Committee Meeting, August 10, 1989. Amore equitable noise distribution, than under the PRS, can be achieved. ® Newspaper Editorial Board Meetings. Richfield has received some unfavorable attention in the press, appearing as "nay-sayers" and being uncooperative. In general, these negative and inaccurate images are harmful to Richfield's efforts to resolve airport-related issues. Newspaper editorial boards take positions on issues, and communicate those positions through their articles. Meeting with area newspaper editorial boards to show . ~_, Richfield's seriousness, reasonability and willingness to cooperate can change the way Richfield is reflected in the media. • Airport Adequacy Study. Bloomington and Richfield have hired Mendelsohn Associates, Inc. to conduct the joint Airport Adequacy Study. Consultants Bob Mendelsohn and Walt Gillfillan held a Pre-Scoping Meeting at Bloomington City Hall on July 25, 1989. Jeff Hamiel from the MAC and John Kari from the Metropolitan Council attended the lunch portion of the meeting. A schedule of workshops was developed: - Wednesday, 9 August - Monday, 18 September - Monday, 2 October - Monday, 16 October - Tuesday, 7 November Scoping Session - Develop list of experts - Focus issues - Begin detailed analysis Identify Key Issues Critical To Recommendations - Identify alternatives - Formalize/focus conclusions Select Course of Action Interactive Technical Session With Met Council & MAC Closing Workshop -Deliver final questions paper -Deliver final strategic plan -Discuss it all Modifications, if necessary, can be made after the final Closing Workshop. s Runway 4-22 Scoping Decision Document. MNDoT and the FAA have released the Scoping Decision Document for the proposed extension of Runway 4-22 (see attachment). The Scoping Decision Document "identifies the alternatives and issues to be studied in the EIS". The construction alternatives identified and selected to be studied in the EIS are: build and no-build. Richfield's construction suggestions, submitted during the comment period, will not be studied. These suggestions included extending Runway 11R-29L or extending Runway 4-22 to the northeast. • Legal options are limited. There is no federal law to use to appeal the Scoping Decision Document. An appeal is usually conducted after the preliminary EIS is done. Such an appeal would charge that the preliminary EIS was inadequate due to insufficient scoping. Recommended Action: With this background, the following recommendations are provided to .address these issues: o MAC Commissioner. The strategy group recommends inviting Mr. Gasper to a Council Study Session. Mr. Gasper will attend the August 7, 1989 Study Session. ® Advisory Council to the Legislature. The strategy group recommends discussing the appointments and recommending additional Advisory Council candidates. • Common Runway Use Goals for Suburban Cities. The strategy group. recommends waiting with the position paper until after MASAC's Special operations Committee makes a recommendation. Minneapolis and St. Paul are each expected to make their own recommendations then. The suburban cities may then present their united positions. ® MASAC's Analysis of Runway Use System (RUS) Data. The strategy group recommends gaining the aviation industry's support in order to look at the desirability of the PRS. Eagan and Mendota Heights' comments on the PRS should be sought. Technical consultation should be used in drafting a formal, alternative plan. o Newspaper Editorial Board Meetings. The strategy group recommends meeting with the editorial boards of the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press/Dispatch, and possibly the Sun Current between now and mid-September. Particular reporters and editors could also be included. The meetings could have the following format: 1. General description of Richfield's position on MSP. 2. Overview of why Richfield is really involved. 3. Describe Bloomington/Richfield Adequacy Study, perhaps bringing in one or more consultants. 4. Use Bob Collette's style of blackboard drawing to describe current problems/alternatives. 5. Discuss expansion of MSP vs. new airport. 6. Restate why Richfield is so interested. Information packets should also be left behind. • Airport Adequacy Study. The strategy group recommends coordinating a meeting between RASG and the consultants. RASG can provide information and support. Staff will continue to provide dates and information as it develops. s Runway 4-22 Scoping Decision Document. The strategy group recommends not bringing an appeal at this time. However, a letter could be sent indicating: - That the City has a public duty to do what it reasonably can to prevent negative environmental impacts. - That the City sees the appropriate time to object being at the end of the preliminary EIS as inadequate. - That the Scoping Decision Document is insufficient and stating examples. - The MNDoT and the FAA should reconsider the Scoping Decision Document. Alternative Recommendation: A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the August 7, 1989 Study Session. Discussion/Decision Mode: These matters will be discussed at the August 7, 1989 Study Session. Respectf lly submitted, James Prosser City pager JDP:mba City of Richfield MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 1989 TO: Bill Morris, Decision Resources Don Priebe Jim Prosser Mayor Steve Quam FROM: Melanie Ault, Administrative Aide~~V~ SUBJECT: Airport Planning Advisory Council Appointments At the last RASG meeting, the Advisory Council appointing process was brought up. Here is the most current information. The Airport Planning bill from this past legislative session created an Advisory Council to provide input and clearance for the dual track planning process. Among others, three senators, three representatives and six public mefibers are to be appointed to the Advisory .Council. The "customary appointing authority" for the House is Speaker of the House, Rep. Robert Vanasek. He has appointed Rep. Jean Wagenius (Minneapolis), Rep. Jerry Knickerbocker (Minnetonka), and Rep. Bernie Lieder (Crookston). He has not appointed the House's three public members, and it is unknown when he will do so. The "customary appointing authority" for the Senate, is: the Subcommittee on Committees, of the Committee on Rules and Administration. The Secretary for the Subcommittee is Mary Hennesey, 296-4196. She is out of the office until August 2nd or 3rd. Peter Watson of the Senate Counsel has informed me that the Subcommittee held a meeting on July 12th, and some appointments were made. The Subcommittee appointed: Sen. Keith Langseth, Co- Chair (Glyndon), Sen. John Marty (Roseville), and Sen. Bill Belanger (Bloomington). Mr. Watson also thought the Subcommittee appointed two of the Senate's three public members. Those two are Susan Sandahl and John Richter. There was some discussion over Dave Sumnick and Steve Cramer for the third public member. Mary Hennesey should be able to provide more information. / d Chairman Tom Holloran has appointed himself and Commissioner Sam Grais (Precinct 1, St. Paul) as the two MAC Commissioners for the Advisory Council. Chairman Steve Keefe has appointed himself and Metropolitan Council Member Don Stein (Coon Rapids) as the two Met Council members for the Advisory Council. Steve Keefe has also appointed Ben Griggs as one of the two aviation members. He has yet to appoint the second. Richfield should suggest public members for the House Speaker to appoint, as well as the third member for the Senate Subcommittee to appoint. CITY OF RICHFIELD Memorandum DATE: August 1, 1989 T0: John Pidgeon, Larry Lee, John Nelson, Bloomington Linda Barton, Jill Shorba, Burnsville Tom Hedges, Jon Hohenstein, Eagan Kevin Frazell, Mendota Heights Byron Wallace, Richfield Don Priebe, MASAC Bob Collette, Consultant FROM: James D. Prosser, City Manage SUBJECT: Drafting of Position Paper on unway Use Enclosed is the revised position paper draft on runway use goals. Please call Melanie Ault or me at 869-7521 if changes need to be made. It was suggested that we wait at least until the MASAC Special Operations Committee brings a recommendation to the full MASAC Committee before we do anything more with our position paper. We will then be prepared to present it when Minneapolis and St. Paul make their objections/recommendations. We will wait until then to meet again. If you have additional strategies, please forward them to me. JDP:mba ~,/ POSITION PAPER RUNWAY USE GOALS FOR SUBURBAN CITIES PREFACE The Cities of Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota Heights and Richfield have agreed on some common runway use goals. The Cities recognize the value of the proximity of Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP Airport), and the importance, transportation, convenience and economic benefits it bestows. The Cities also recognize that MSP Airport brings negative environmental impacts. The Cities have enjoyed a cordial and prosperous interdependence with MSP Airport, but they recognize the need for changes, and many are noise driven. The Cities want noise impacts mitigated, and more noise distribution equity. The Cities' position is described below: CONTINUE THE COMMITMENT FOR FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF FAR PART 150 PLANS. The Cities recognize that the solution to the aircraft noise problem must include both noise prevention and noise abatement. The Cities support the commitment for funding of FAR Part 150 initiatives as one method of noise abatement. Timeliness of the completion of the Part 150 review is emphasized. The Cities support the efforts of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) in getting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval of the submittal. The Cities encourage the MAC to rapidly implement those procedures approved by the FAA, and further, to rapidly advance grant applications for those elements eligible for FAA funding. Off-site noise abatement measures should be implemented prior to, or concurrent with, any capital improvement projects at MSP Airport. Further, dedicate a percentage (to be determined after coordination with the parties involved) of each year's capital improvement budget to off-site noise abatement measures. The Cities support the development of a program which would provide sound insulation to severely impacted homes. This is not a total solution however, because areas outside of the 65 Ldn would not benefit and also, people enjoy spending time outdoors. Purchase assurance should be an available option, as should property acquisition or redevelopment. Alternative funding mechanisms should also be examined. THERE SHOULD BE A SENSE OF EQUITY IN RUNWAY USAGE. In principle, the concept of equitable distribution of runway traffic has merit. In practice however, equity has been difficult to attain. The causes of difficulty are easy to define: peak hour traffic must be routed on the parallel runways, and increased traffic volume has expanded to peak hour activity. The Cities recognize the importance of testing operation changes with the intent of improving equity. Therefore, continued attention should be given to such changes. EAGAN AND MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR. Eagan and Mendota Heights recognize that the industrial/freeway corridor in northern Dakota County provides a significant area of land uses which are compatible with overflights. Therefore, the two communities have historically accepted the Preferential Runway System use pattern, which sends a disproportionate number of flights to the southeast, from Runways 11R and 11L. Eagan and Mendota Heights' continued support for its Preferential Runway System designation however, is contingent on the ability of the FAA Control Tower to avoid "spilling" out of this compatible corridor into the surrounding residential districts. The FAA should adopt, and strictly enforce, operational procedures which keep aircraft in a corridor acceptable to the communities. The FAA should use reasonable and responsible means of making use of compatible land use, since it is the primary noise abatement method recommended by them to alleviate noise impacts. ALTERNATIVE WAYS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED TO OPERATE MSP AIRPORT MORE EFFICIENTLY. Demand management techniques should be explored as alternatives to run MSP Airport more efficiently. Possible alternatives include: -- Charging fees for final approach slots. -- Using prices and regulations to shift traffic to different times. -- General aviation use should be reduced at MSP Airport as proposed in the Part 150 review. -~ ALTERNATIVE WAYS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED TO OPERATE MSP AIRPORT MORE QUIETLY Alternatives should also be explored for running MSP Airport more quietly. Possible alternatives include: -- Encouraging or requiring the transition to quieter Stage III aircraft within a certain time period. -- Exploring flight path alternatives, such as the Standard instrument Departure (SID) as proposed by the City of Burnsville. Such flight path alternatives would re-direct traffic to non- residential areas. -- Voluntary curfew hours on weekends should be extended from 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. -- The engine run-up policy should be more strictly enforced. -- Higher landing fees for non-Stage III aircraft should be introduced. While it is important to respect the corridors which cities have designated for air traffic, it is equally important to respect the residential areas which were completed years ago based on the City's Comprehensive Plan.