11-28-77 agenda0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 361
Agenda November 28, 19 7 7
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Presentation by Mr. Patrick Colbert, Jr. Metropolitan
Council Representative
Mr. Patrick Colbert, Jr. is our new Metropolitan Council representative.
He has asked for the opportunity to spend about twenty minutes visiting with
the city council for a general discussion of Metropolitan Council matters.
We have tentatively scheduled Mr. Colbert for 8 :00 p.m. on the city council
agenda.
WSB /eja
Respectfully submitted,
VJ w
S. gt�
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
"-.Am
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 360
Agenda November 28, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Deferral of Request for Special Use Permit, Lindahl Olds,
1900 West 78th Street
This item was originally scheduled for the November 14, 1977., city council
meeting, but was deferred at the request of the applicant to the. November 28,
1977 meeting. -
The applicant has not yet submitted all of the information necessary for
city council consideration of this matter. Therefore, it is recommended that
the city council defer this matter indefinitely until such time as the item is
ready to be considered by the city council.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager -
W SB /e j a
cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Council Letter No. 359
Agenda November 28, 1977
Subject: Proposed Amendment to Aviation Chapter of the
Metropolitan Development Guide
There is an item on the November 28, 1977 city council agenda, providing
opportunity for the council to comment on the draft aviation chapter of the
Metropolitan Development Guide. A copy of the proposed chapter and a
summary- prepared by the Planning Department staff are attached to this letter
for city council review. The Metropolitan Council will be holding a public
hearing on the proposed aviation chapter on, November 29, 1977, at the
West Richfield Junior High School.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment at its
November 22, 1977 meeting, and identified the following areas of concern:
1. The need to maintain Wold- Chamberlain Field as the major
international airport in the Twin Cities metropolitan area;
2. The need to minimize the negative effects of the airport on the
east side of Richfield;
3. The need to be involved in noise abatement and land use planning
and land use regulation;
4. The need to protect East Richfield from the adverse effects of ground
(landside) transportation, especially in the area of 66th Street;
5. The need to produce a plan and regulations which will not have
secondary adverse effects on efforts to conserve east Richfield
as a viable residential area.
Council Letter No. 359 - 2 - November 28, 1977
The issues expressed by the Planning Commission are in conformance with
the concerns identified by the staff, and will be developed in more detail for
presentation to the Metropolitan Council along with any additional issues which
the city council may identify.
Respectfully submitted,
.J�
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
W SB /j kl
cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director
T
Z
SUMMARY-OF SYSTEM PLAN CHANGES
01 The basic objectives underlying the revised Airports System Plan
are:
1) to develop metropolitan aviation goals and policies;
2) to provide a more precise identification of aviation needs in
the metropolitan area through the year 2000; and
3) to accomodate those needs within the context of the aviation
goals, policies and the fiscal capability of the area.
The six metropolitan aviation goals are as follows:
1. Develop, operate and maintain an aviation system that enhances
the quality of life for persons in the Twin Cities region.
2. Plan, develop and operate an aviation system that will help
promote the orderly growth and economic development of the
region.
3. Provide an aviation system that is safe, efficient and economical.
4. Provide metropolitan residents with good access to state, national
and international activities and opportunities.
S. Provide aviation facilities and services that produce positive
effects on the social and economic environment with minimal
adverse effects on the physical environment.
6. -Attain a regional aviation planning and programming process that
is responsive to the needs and interests of residents, industries,
groups, counties, municipalities and affected agencies, with
sufficient opportunity provided for them to participate in policy
and implementation.
In order to achieve the airports system goals a parallel set of guides
or policies have also been identified:
-2-
The following are the policies or guides to be used in implementing
the six aviation goals:
Svstem Investments
1. Air transportation investments should be made on the basis of
need and the ability of the metropolitan area to support these
investments over time in relation to other metropolitan needs
and investments.
2. Existing airport facilities should be developed to their maxi-
mum capability consistent with the Metropolitan Development
Guide prior to investment in new facilities.
Planning Coordination
3. Expansion of existing airports and the development of new air-
ports should be planned to coincide with other development con-
sistent with the Metropolitan Development Guide and local com-
prehesnive plans.
Land Use Compatab.ility
4. Land use surrounding an airport in the Metropolitan Airport
System should be compatible with the role and function assigned
to that airport; where incompatability exists, affected agencies
or jurisdiction should jointly participate in developing a pro-
gram to eliminate the incompatability.
Airport Operation Priorities
5. In the development and operation of the Metropolitan Airport
System, the priority of aviation activities should be accomodated
in the following order.:
-3-
a) commercial air carrier passenger activities;
b) commercial air cargo;
c) gusiness activity oriented to the Metropolitan area;
d) military activity;
e) recreation and pleasure activity;
f) training flight;
g) other .
Environmental Compatability
6. State and federal environmental standards and adopted Metropolitan
Council polidies (noise, air quality, water quality, etc.) must be
a. major consideration in the planning, design and operation of
air transportation projects and facilities.
Safety
7. State and federal safety standards must be a major consideration
in the planning, design, maintenance and operation of air trans-
portation facilities and services.
Ground Accessabilit
8. The Metropolitan Highway System in conjunction with the overall
.roadway, network should provide metropolitan residents with the
'following travel times to the Metropolitan Airports Systems elements:
a) major airport: 60 minutes
b) intermediate airport: 30 minutes [from within the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)]
c) minor airport: 30 minutes from within the MUSA.
-4-
ti
MDG Airport Chapter
9. The Airports Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide should
be reviewed every four years for adequacy and responsiveness to
changing conditions affecting aviation.
THE AIRPORT AT WOLD CHAMBERLAIN FIELD IMPACT ON RICHFIELD
The airport at Wold Chamberlain field in the year 2000 will have a
minor impact on Richfield.
The role of the airport will change from now to the year 2000. There
will be a reduction in the number of night flights and a reduction
in the number of general aviation flights. What this means is there
will be an increased number of commercial travel and air cargo service
from the International Airport.
The airport will be developed to its maximum capability which is higher
than the forecasts for usage in the year 2000. The idea of a seach area
for another major aiport has been terminated.
Richfield should work with the Minnesota Department-of Transportation
and the Federal Aviation Administration on established zoning and land
use requirements as required in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
111111 a
!tt R
OF -THE
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
(PUBLIC _HEARINGS DRAFT)
October 21,1977
Al RPORTS
k
A/9177
i
CONTENT
Page
Preface .......................................... v
Policy Index .................................................
...... ............................... .........
INTRODUCTION....... ............................... 1'
Background... .......... ....................:.......... 2
" Significance of Aviation to Metropolitan Area 3
Summary of System Plan Changes ........................... 9
PART I: AVIATION GOALS /POLICIES ............................ 11
Goals ....................................... 11
Policies ................................................. 12
PART-..I!: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF METROPOLITAN
AVIATION FACILITIES .... 15
PART III:- EXISTING AIRPORTS SYSTEM 19
Description of System ..... ............................... 19
Performance of System ..... ............................... 29
PARTIV: AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN ................................ 33
System Capacity ..........% ............................... 33
1990/2000 Demand Forecasts .............. 34
System Alternatives ....... ............................... 36
Alternative Systems Evaluation .......... 39
1990 System Plan .......... ............................... 40
PART V:. SYSTEM PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 53
Costs /Funding ............. ............................... 53
Timing /Priorities ......... ........:...................... 55
Implementation Guidelines . _ .. _......� 5.7
............... .. ..- ..
Footnotes .............. ................... 61'
APPENDICES
Glossary .................. ............................... b4 .
Airport Influence Areas ... ............................... 69
Physical Characteristics of a Typical Minor General
82
Aviation Airport.. ... ..
84
Airport Search Areas ...... ...............................
AIRPORTS
ii /A/9/77
FIGURES
1. Commercial Air Passengers, Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport, 1950 - 1976... ..................
2. Air Cargo, Minneapolis -St. Paul International
Airport, 1950 -1976 ... ...............................
3. Commercial Air Passengers Between Twin Cities
and Principal Nearby Cities and Adjacent States, 1976
4. Commercial Air Passenger Traffic Between Twin
Cities and Other Major U.S. Cities and Regions, 1976
5. Number of U.S. Cities with Non -Stop Service from
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, 1950-
1976 ......... ....
6. National Air Travel "Time /Distance Rings" from
Minnneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, 1950
and 1977 ..............................................
7. Total Aircraft Operations 4t Twin Cities Metro-
politan Airports, 1950 -1976 .......................:.
8. Summary of Airports System Plan Changes .............
9.. Basic Aircraft Types .............. ....... .......
10. Functional Classification of Metropolitan Aviation
Facilities ....... ......................:........
11. Comparison of Metropolitan, State and Federal Air-
port Classification Systems ........................
12. Twin Cities Metropolitan Aviation Facilities, 1977 ..
13. General Aviation Based Aircraft by Airport in Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area, 1976 ......................
14. Air Operations at Publicly owned Airports in the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 1964 -1976 ............
15.` Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Airspace Structure,
1977 ................. ...............................
16. Schematic Diagram of Airport Airspace Surfaces ......
6
7
24
26
--.r
- A19/77 • h iii ~'.r`T.,-
26. Metropolitan Dispersion. of beneral Aviation Aireraft
Allocated to Publicly -Owned Airports, 1976/1990/2000 44
27. Percent of Year'2000 Distributed General Aviation Aircraft
That Could be Accommodated at Existing Publicly Owned
Airports ............... ............................... 45
28. Rationale for Selection of the Two General Aviation
Airport Search Areas .. ............................... 46
29. Cost Estimates for Planning /Development of Metro-
politan Airport System Elements, 1978 -1990 ........... 54
30. Metropolitan Airports System Plan Priorities ......... 56
31. Roles in Metropolitan Airports System Planning/
Implementation ........ ............................... 58
32. Locations of Airports Peripheral to Metropolitan Area. 60
FIGURES
(continued)
Page
17.
Schematic Diagram of Airport Land Use Zones .......... .
27
18.
Twin Cities Metropolitan Airport Airspace'Zones,
1977. ... ............................... ..............
28
19.
Generalized Performance Evaluation Matrix of Existing
Twin Cities Metropolitan Airports, 1976 ..*............
30
20.
General Aviation Capacities by Metropolitan Airport:
�.
1976 and Maximum ...... ...............................
35.
21.
General Aviation.Aircraft and Operations Forecasts
Procedure ............. ...............................
37
22.
1990/2000 Metropolitan Aviation Demand Forecasts .....
37
23.
Procedure for Determining Number and Types of Required
New System Airports ..................................
38
24.
1990 Metropolitan Airports System Plan..... ........
41
25.
1990 Status of Metropolitan Airports System Elements..
42
26. Metropolitan Dispersion. of beneral Aviation Aireraft
Allocated to Publicly -Owned Airports, 1976/1990/2000 44
27. Percent of Year'2000 Distributed General Aviation Aircraft
That Could be Accommodated at Existing Publicly Owned
Airports ............... ............................... 45
28. Rationale for Selection of the Two General Aviation
Airport Search Areas .. ............................... 46
29. Cost Estimates for Planning /Development of Metro-
politan Airport System Elements, 1978 -1990 ........... 54
30. Metropolitan Airports System Plan Priorities ......... 56
31. Roles in Metropolitan Airports System Planning/
Implementation ........ ............................... 58
32. Locations of Airports Peripheral to Metropolitan Area. 60
J
Ht nrvn � o
A /lY "/77 v- - -
Preface
This comprehensive Development Guide for aviation facilities is authorized under
Statutes 1976, Section 473.145:
"The Metropolitan Council shall prepare and adopt, after appropriate
study and such public hearings as may be necessary, a comprehensive
development guide for the Metropolitan Area: It shall consist of a
compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, programs and maps
prescribing guides for an orderly and economic development, public
and private, of the Metropolitan Area. The comprehensive development
guide shall recognize and encompass physical, social, or economic
needs of the Metropolitan Area and those future developments which will
have an impact on the entire area including land use, parks, and
.open space land needs, the necessity for and location of airports,
highway, transit facilities, public hospitals, libraries, schools and-
other public buildings."
This guide chapter supercedes the March, 1973, Airports chapter of the Metro-
politan Development Guide and represents a major revision of the former
chapter. The reasons for and the nature of this revision are contained in
the Introduction.
This guide chapter details aviation goals, policies and a related airport
system plan to help support the recently adopted Development Framework for the
Metropolitan Area. It responds to the peridic need to re- evaluate the.airports
system•performance in responding to current aviation trends and environmental
concerns. This Guide chapter is to be used as a statement of the direction
that the Twin Cities metropolitan aviation investments are to take between
now and 1990, although airport needs have been identified through the year
2000. It is also to serve as a guide to develop more detailed studies,
aviation facility projects, implementation programs and to provide a basis
for the selection of new metropolitan general aviation airport sites. The
Metropolitan Council will use this chapter as its guide in reviewing airport
plans and related proposals.
URPORT5
Vz A 9/77
L •S•..' ... li I•tCe. w[IiwT1 ...���,,, l
• 7 oee +e :� .[.Oet• xI•NOi 1 ,aarN• 1
3 wrwwltOw•• f[.GN •! tit 10•L[ 1 1 -
t f.cV. fa( 21... .0 .1 J'v0 `
1 ltCL:S10• 21 1L.00 iOOO 1
• if[[ww000 7 e(11w000
7 •coot. +o 23 N.[ sln.cf Y•T aafwLa 1 -
_ N.NIONt 01 0:1•wS i Ou -
lrCre•). 25 V .c L..L —
• 10 f0t91.60•L[ - LO t1eGN.000
ll LP... 27 .e +.tE i_•a 1 , _
l2 -Y t S3VI Si I.T.O.( -
j3- wIL1101 2Y •Ita[fnl! —'
• 1• c"u.m• wt-i-ts 30 a.. r•[. Nl1aN(4 •
IS !1 •.1 +0.1 71 Ltt1L•.0 tne•tt 1 ANOKA CO. GaturfV3
is NYOUO•tt
32 sf ufTY 101 +t 1 a.eYT .t: a.aa Hta I .t +sa..at
} t NN.N
w•[st t•.[
n • wNNr1 1I NT(K �(
tw•w•a.w � teH ••n•t
CA �`•rf ••Ka1 i
i , i t4N i w•T
T writ
Q� =ta :.a i• It Kloe ,t Ku n.p wkshmaTON CO.
0 ❑ 1•ea..tT '�.
unnti a•caNe ! w•wc uf•c,.r --� 1e i 1 n[ •[i. nl I srua.••p
I�('f1�I .� 1 1 a•wapru 't I .wr.L. q�y/��i•`i'.)t ..•.r
`v' ^ °<,rNa NlNN[M1N Co. I '.a <t�il intt��,K I <ia ^•.J r� r•`x� ' •n•
Ul
� 1 l t MMU I rt.ae.ra 40 S ' �•
y'�rtis CtTtw ;T �. Nxanu �••••''
_ ,nom t rc••! _ f '.'I 4•rn(.eN :-- •r+vtt.tt
• t, Lj''••`••' �ES
_ I fia•G� .,a�0.1�sY1.•T�--- +jy.�P u . l fIwYSee, CO. f I tt.wo f-
�- �a �.n.n..S n�. � �?} �: "uJ�3�....an.t• I t...: t I� . w.r.r•w 1 f L..n• �1
w0ta••G/SO t ..rs• *r, • i.- >.Fi':.+.n....t. yen.. a o. ctN: rn-,.
� - �l••u -__ - 4 !lLt,'�4">r.
1 f� t...••xe.
i '
•a(tp.+v ^ - latuwwt aqw
N • I ' ftH•� +tfK
CAAYtA � 'ta N
1 na+I1 � COrt•tttK•t Ot.N.••
L - - - - ^1 CO. -- ar•p.� I Yw tati
t OAAOTA t0. CN �
M• tK• I • n.Y•C `� WMx e.
NNNt{. -./• ' HtK.� a• +�..[w 1 �-� .r. Y..at
1CwrOw I ••Rt a•l4T HIt•Vrw• I ,.,.wi(I •,1rIN{ I .
- •eN,G wtc..• I I .•.i1
L•_ -= I _ I j
cxa 1
Y•[nau tr••.t ,.Sny
�.." —
• • ` .rtttN 1 1
1 SCOTT CO.
IT
I wE•r•a alt I.i 7TN I r 1
wttu. � ao.+t•a[ tww I e•sfaeeoc• I I u'
- a•rtu. 1 snit Et..t I ' Nw ••.an I 1 r•�,.ree I ooeets
17— s to Lf m u 1 +.tt +rrl +• *ltrc•0 /' y '�
11 f�Kh'•
I
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF THE TWIN CITIES AREA
The Council members and their districts are as follows: Chairman. aaaaas • John Boland, North St. Paul
1 • John J. Costello,
6 . George Dahlvang,
9. Robert L. Hoffman,
13 - Marcia Bennett,
Columbia Heights
St. Paul
2- Todd J. Lefko,
Minneapolis
6 • Joan Campbell,
Bloomington
10 • Betty Pane,
14. Opal M. Petersen,
St. Paul
Minneapolis
Golden Valley
Stillwater
3 • Charles L. Rafferty,
7 • Gladys S. Brooks,
11 • Robert Short,
15 • Gary Pagel,
West St. Paul
St. Paul
4 • Stanley B. Kegler,
Minneapolis
8- Alton J. Gasper,
Edina
12- Charles R. Weaver,
16 • M. James Daly,
Maplewood
Minneapolis
Anoka
Belle Plaine
AIRPORTS
k
1 y
A/ lf/ 77
INTRODUCTION
The_1977.Twin Cities metropolitan airports system includes one of the nation's
major air transportation terminals together with eleven other airports of
varying sizes to serve principally the business and personal needs of the
Area. Also'- included•in the current metropolitan airports system are special
purpose aviation facilities for seaplanes and helicopters -and gliders. Combined,
these facilities represent the Area's response to past regional aviation trends.
Twin Cities metropolitan airports planning involves the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT),
Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the counties
and local jurisdictions. The FAA controls all air traffic in the Metropolitan
Area in _addition to reviewing the MAC's airport master plans and federally
funded airport.projects. The Division of Aeronautics of Mn /DOT also reviews
the MAC's airport master plans as well as licenses all airports. The
Metropolitan Council is responsible for development of an Airports Guide - System
Plan and for periodically updating it as changing circumstances warrant. Imple-
mentation and operation;of the metropolitan airports system is* principally
the responsibility of the MAC•which.presently owns and operates six of the
Area's twelve existing public --use airport facilities.
Steady metropolitan growth combined with technological advances in aviation
and increasing demand for air transport established the need for a compre-
hensive systems approach to aviation planning in the Area. The first com-
prehensive Metropolitan Airports System Plan for the Twin Cities Area was
adopted by-the Metropolitan Council in 1972 and published as a separate
chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) in March, 1973, The
1972 plan identified twelve public-and private airports as comprising the
metropolitan system. Additionally, a North Search Area in Anoka County was
identified for a new major commercial jet transport facility together with
eight search areas in the rural periphery of the Metropolitan Area for as many
new general aviation (GA) airports. (1)
%IRPORTS
2A977
This current Guide chapter re- evaluates the need tb retain those nine search
areas in light of recent aviation trends and outlines in more specific terms
future roles of all existing and required new airports in the-Twin Cities
area through the year 1990.
Background
Since the adoption of the 1972 Airports System Plan, several events have
occurred that required a major reassessment of the former system plan,
events were: -
Downward revisions by the Metropolitan
toCouncil
reflectfa forecast
comparablepopula-
tion and employment that are expected
decrease in the number of commercial air passengers and general
aviation aircraft owners and users. The 1972 Airports System Plan
was based upon a projected 2000 population and employment of
3,200,000 and 1,900,000, respectively. The revised system plan
is based upon a projected 2000 population and employment of
2,487,000 and 1,342,000, respectively.
a.
These
b. Continuous downward revisions of the total number of air carrier
aircraft operations by the FAA since the early 1970's:
c. An increased operating efficiency by the airlines in carrying more
passengers per gallon ofjfuel in response to the increasing cost
and potential scarcity of aviation fuel since 1972.
d. The increasing use of larger capacity jets in commercial air
traffic which has reduced the number of projected operations needed
to accommodate increasing air travel demands.
e. Significant progress in abating aircraft noise at the Minneapolis -
St. pawl (MSP) International Airport through: (1) the reduction
in the number of projected commercial air operations as the result of
the increasing use of larger capacity aircraft, (2) improved aircraft
engine design to reduce noise generation, combined with (3) the MAC 's
rehensive noise abatement program. These efforts have
current comp
placed a new perspective upon the long -term capability of the Area's
sole major-airport.
f. Establishment of federal (noise), state (noise and zoning), and
metropolitan (Land Planning Act) legislation that have a direct
impact on airports and their operating environment. .
g. New and revised Metropolitan Development Guide chapters and the
completion of several master plans for airports within the system.
1�
A/9/77 3
Significance of Aviation to Metropolitan Area
`Today, air travel provides the - safest, most.efficient and quickest mode of
transport of passengers and several types of cargo at distances of over 250
miles. Since the inception of commercial air travel in the 19301s, the
Overall economic vitality and growth potential of the Twin Cities Area, as
well as the Upper Midwest, have become increasingly dependent upon air trans-
portation due to the Area's relative geographic-isolation from other major
economic, cultural and population centers in the country.
Aviation significance can be defined in terms of the number of passengers
using the service, the amount of cargo transported by air, the degree of
accessibility provided to other parts of the country and the world, its
impact upon the Area's economy, and its necessity for the nation's defense.
(Scheduled Air Service: Passengers and Cargo)
MSP International represents the first significant step in the growth of Twin
Cities aviation with the commencement of air operations at this•site in 1923.
Today, this major air transportation terminal represents.the most modern
adaptation to the Area's jet-age Ineeds. The number of commercial air passengers
and the amount of air cargo handled at the 11SP International Airport have been
steadily increasing since 1950 (Figures 1 & 2). The total number of commercial
air passengers utilizing the MSP International Airport has increased from 610,000
in 1950 to over seven million in 1976, representing approximately a twel-ve -fold
increase in 26 years. Air cargo, likewise, has significantly increased during
the same time period -- raning from a total of 13,224 tons shipped in 1950 to
..140,074 tons shipped in 1976. This eleven -fold increase in air cargo tonnage
reflects the parallel steady growth of principally air freight and air mail handled.
Presently, approximately 75 percent of the total annual air cargo handled at MSP
International has either its source or destination in the seven - county metro area. (2)
(Degree of Air Accessibility)
Another gauge of significance of air transportation is the degree of accessi-
bility that aviation presents for the Twin Cities Area residents and business
community to other parts of the country and the world. Air accessibility can
jU RPORTS
4/A/9/77
IN
to
9 }•
S 7.332,000
v� 7
N 5
a. 4
w
° 3 -
a2 _ 1,712.000
a 1
r Q POO
1950 1960 1970 1976
Sources: Metropolitan Airports Commission
' PASSENGFS, NEAPOLIS-
i igure COMERCIAL 1I ':
ST. PAUL INTERiWELIO?IAL AIRPORT, 1050-19%76
150 i wo.074
125 rez,�34
100 ►SSA ►i
TOTAL
z Air Freight-
75 Air.Mail
w
Air Express }
° 50 3
W 3Q,4z?
Cn 25 �� 9,079 '
o 3000
0 1970 1976
1950. 146Q
Sources: Metropolitan Airports Commission
Figure 2. AIR CA °.GO, �•il ; iEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL
ITITE.i�IAT I0:1AL AIRPORT , 1950-1976
AI RP6RTS
A/9/77
be measured principally in terms of the number o� cities -and countries of the
world that are in direct contact with the Twin Cities Area via air transport
and by the amount of travel time between the Twin Cities and those cities
and countries in contrast to other transportation modes.
Accessibility, whether within the Metropolitan Area or global in context, is
a measure of the quality of life for the Area's residents. Figures 3 and
4.illustrate the major travel patterns that have evolved between the Twin
.Cities and the Upper Midwest region and the nation, respectively. Figure 5 .
illustrates the increasing convenience of air travel for Area residents in terms
of the growing number of U.S. cities with non -stop service from the Twin
Cities Area. Figure_6 shows the significant decreases in air travel time
that has occurred since 1950 between the Twin Cities Afea and the remainder
of the country. Also, air travel of Area residents to other parts of the
world has been steadily increasing -- especially since the inception and
growing popularity of international charter flights in the early 1970's.
In 1976, approximately 60,000 (air'passengers utilizing the MSP International
Airport had foreign destinatio�i3)of.which, most.likely, three- quarters resided
in the Seven - County Area: H
(Direct Economic Impact)
In terms of direct economic impact from the operation of the existing airports
system, the current system of metropolitan airports not only provides.the
Area residents, industries, and commerce with good air accessibility to the
rest of the world and its marketplace but,in addition, generates economic
activity that greatly benefits the Area. For example, MSP International
Airport, in addition to being one of the principal employment centers in the
Twin Cities Area, is the single most important passenger terminal located
between Chicago and Seattle. Presently, MSP International Airport provides
jobs for approximately 16,000 Area residents. An additional 20,000 jobs
are located within a 2-mile radius of this facility (4) making this expanded
activity node one of the largest employment centers in the Twin Cities Area.
It is assumed that the locating of hotels, motels, restaurants, major industrial
'"n�nrvn•�.� 'iJ
6 A/11/77
NORTH DAVOTA
Grand Forks
Duluth
Bismark Fargo
. NiSCO`SIe2
SOU•: -H DAitOTA
Mpls. -SC• Paul Green Bay ,•
Pierre 1 <4�. Hilwaukee
ti �:
'.
Sioux Falls' liadison
v,CBRASKA :y Dubuque
Sioux City 100,000 PASSc:+GcP.S
O =
Des Moines t?* 75,000 - 99,999
Omaha 50.000.• 74.999
x5.000 - 44.999
5,000 - 24.999 —
_ FIGURE 3. C0101ERCIAL AIR PASSENGERS BETWEEN T14IN CITIES AND
PRINCIPAL NEARBY CITIES AND ADJACENT STATES, 1976
1
Koo
FIGURE 4. COMMERCIAL AIR PASSENGER TRAFFIC BETWEEN TWIN CITIES
AND OTHER MAJOR U.S. CITIES ARID REGIONS, 1976
•
.1-7/A/11/77
•'
At
a 70
w
N rfl
a, 60 Jv
C4
H 5 X48
U
w 40
O
g�
w 74
r
x
1950 1960 1970 1976
Sources: Metropolitan Airports Commission
Figure 5. -NUMBER OF U.S. CITIES WITH -i70N -STOP SERVICE
FROM MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL
l.LbULG V. 1vt111.v1NtSL [11111 11Vi.VG.L 11P1r 11l1J1.,wUz N.Ln uJ rKUM
MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
1950 and 1977.
r
o RPQRTS
8/A i1/ 77 ► !
Im
and engineering firms, and various government agencies near the airport was
related to its presence.
Although it is difficult to measure the precise economic impact related to
the operation of the existing Metropolitan airports system on the Area it
has been estimated that the annual payroll of aviation - related jobs in the Area
is over one -half billion dollars and that the millions of air passengers
contribute an additional one - quarter billion dollars annually to the Metropolitan.
economy.
(5)
(General Aviation)
Another gauge of the significance of aviation to the Area is the use of general
aviation aircraft for business purposes, Twelve of the top 500 national cor-
porations which are headquartered in the Twin Cities and had combined 1976 sales
of twelve billion dollars either own or regularly charter GA aircraft based at
the Area's airports. (6) Business use of general aviation, combined with total
creation and flight instruction,represented approximately 90.percent of
aircraft operations in the Metropolitan Area in 1976 (see Fig.-7). Assuming an aver-
age minimum of two persons per flight, general aviation presently carries
approximately two million passengers per y
ear,which is equal to almost one-
third of the total annual airline passengers handled at MU International.
Although an overall estimate of the impact of GA operations upon the Metropo-
litan economy has not yet been made, it is clearly in the hundreds of millions
of dollars annually. GA's greatest asset to its users is its flexibility an
ability to perform where scheduled air carrier service is not possible or
practical.
(Military Use)
Military operations, although representing a minor portion of total metro-
politan aircraft operations, are nevertheless important to the nation's
defense in addition to adding to the Area's economy through the military
support personnel stationed here. A dollar -value impact assessment reflective
in the number of military operations upon the Metropolitan economy has not been
AIRPORTS •
A/9 77
1,500+
N
1,250--
j`�` 4238.000
,Z0,
a:
� ti 1,031,1$►
w 1, 000
O
I�O
}Qi
750
�aoeG� ,�
enrol Aviation
Carrier
U
i
Air
H
� bCO,CDO
�250
309,000
L50�
79th __ --
I- Q�.--O
-
N Q
��-- ��.� >a`� _
-
O
H 1950
1960
1970_ 1976
Sources:
Metropolitan Airports
Commission
Metropolitan Council
Figure 7. TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT TWIN CITIES.
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS, 1950 -1976
.r
Today, air transportation has become a routine yet vital aspect of the quality
of life for the Area's residents and business community. Most people now
take air travel for granted. A primary consideration of the revised Air-
ports System Plan is to ensure that this service remains responsive to the
Area's• air transportation needs.
_Summary of S stem Plan Changes
The basic objectives underlying the revised Airports System Plan are: 1) to
develop metropolitan aviation goal and policies, 2) to provide a more precise
identification of aviation needs in the Metropolitan Area through the year 2000
and 3) to accommodate those needs within the context of the aviation goals,
policies and the fiscal capability of the Area..
The revised Airports System Plan includes several changes from the 1972 plan
as reflected in the following summary chart.
AIRPORTS RPORTS r -.d
1 o A -I-I' 7
V:
L
z
a
x
L
z
a
G+
v
v
to
F
s
c
G
G
r
I
)
7�
C
4
D
7
I
a�
M
w
0
v
,4
w
•ri
u
91
O H
C
•.1 O
�4
41
O C +�
•4 W >,
b
a3i CC .4
z
old
o d
r-i
W $4 rGi
O
lei Q) 6 ►V+
d •ri O
W a) •n
41 Cd
lu+.
C >
td a) .,4 10
mo uP
Cn H Pr CO
al
N
CU
.b
•ri
N
C
O
u
N
N
u
r�
U
W
N
N
O
N
a
r-i
Cd
.A
V
N
c.
CA
tn M o o
N
b
03 o w o. ra
b
a)
Ln cn Ln''' ra
u
d
cd d)
q
zt
4)
19
to r4
u O .. ca Q)
W
44
•v y $4
'
u N
0�N
.a u
w
C)
W Cd
Cd
C>
a)
Ln
N
x u
5• H }4 O Cd r-4
v v a) O b
co U
N
u
CVM
N
d
1 1
1 1
i
d
6v
U
W .•
0o%o
so
A
u
r-i cr1
-4 O
U u
CG
N
co
N
N
$4 H
d �
,4 vr4 r�i •r1
dddCd >>
mt.
CA
<4
41
$C
to ri
)a
O
to
00
,u
40
ii
rte!
•ri
O
cud N
r>i N r•i
a) Cd
z
° zz
a
PL, o44
cd
c�
co
y
ca
1 i
a)
u
u
AcQ
K
O
Z•rNd
-v4
N N
u C.r-i W
0
•ri 'O
vi
144
d
,v
N
o
G
r4
Cd
4
0
b
C
a
a
0
.r{
r 4
N
H
b
O
p,
r 4
u Ga
1C
N
4
H
u e)
Cd
u
�0
r 4
a�)
co
N
C O
M p+
d
W'
u
o
as
`o,",
v
u
uU
C2.CV
3J
�Cd
al
d W 0 GC+
C) cd
v1
la
ru4
U
S+ 34 .,4
0 -
u
b
O'
NO CCi
n.L C a)
:+
•ri O
d
N
O N
M W
P7.
•ri •ri
cJ C •,-1 o]
W
"4
N
U N
`•
a>i
p4
•rXi
v)
r�i
Z
0
Ck U )
P.
t9 p
0
v
,4
w
•ri
u
91
O H
C
•.1 O
�4
41
O C +�
•4 W >,
b
a3i CC .4
z
old
o d
r-i
W $4 rGi
O
lei Q) 6 ►V+
d •ri O
W a) •n
41 Cd
lu+.
C >
td a) .,4 10
mo uP
Cn H Pr CO
al
N
CU
.b
•ri
N
C
O
u
N
N
u
r�
U
W
N
N
O
N
a
r-i
Cd
.A
V
N
c.
CA
tn M o o
N
b
03 o w o. ra
o
a)
Ln cn Ln''' ra
u
t�
cd d)
Cr w P
zt
4)
19
to r4
u O .. ca Q)
W
44
•v y $4
'
u N
0�N
.a u
w
C)
W Cd
Cd
C>
r4 O
Ln
N
x u
5• H }4 O Cd r-4
v v a) O b
co U
N
CC14%n
CVM
N
d
1 1
1 1
i
V
6v
U
W .•
0o%o
so
o
u
r-i cr1
-4 O
U u
CG
N
CJN
N
N
$4 H
d �
,4 vr4 r�i •r1
dddCd >>
mt.
CA
<4
41
$C
to ri
)a
u
to
00
,u
40
ii
rte!
UU U° u o
O
cud N
r>i N r•i
a) Cd
z
0
v
,4
w
•ri
u
91
O H
C
•.1 O
�4
41
O C +�
•4 W >,
b
a3i CC .4
z
old
o d
r-i
W $4 rGi
O
lei Q) 6 ►V+
d •ri O
W a) •n
41 Cd
lu+.
C >
td a) .,4 10
mo uP
Cn H Pr CO
al
N
CU
.b
•ri
N
C
O
u
N
N
u
r�
U
W
N
N
O
N
a
r-i
Cd
.A
V
N
c.
CA
tn M o o
N
03 o w o. ra
o
Ln cn Ln''' ra
t�
cd d)
Cr w P
zt
4)
•� ri
to r4
u O .. ca Q)
W
z
•v y $4
'
u N
0�N
.a u
al
W Cd
N
ra
W a1
H a.c•
x u
5• H }4 O Cd r-4
v v a) O b
co U
N
N C
Co N O
O
W z
• O •.i C a) U rC
a) G
444J
pN
y1N -N 4
6v
U
W .•
td -
V,
o
v
-4 to
4
U u
O N
u .0 O
W
O Cd
Gu GQ
W
Cd O
$4 H
d �
,4 vr4 r�i •r1
dddCd >>
mt.
CA
<4
}+
o
$C
to ri
)a
U rz Cd
to
00
,u
40
w
rte!
UU U° u o
$4 3
cud N
r>i N r•i
a) Cd
° zz
a
PL, o44
cd
c�
u
u
AcQ
u 0ru4.14
K
u
Z•rNd
N N
u C.r-i W
W
•ri 'O
vi
d
`oV)
o
cd :
o
a
cd
4
a
0
aU
)
p
WrC
H
b
N O
td
C9
1C
4-,4
Cd d
p cd U
E'ruiau)?
u e)
U •ri
u
�0
1� •d
U N 9: ••i
Nw
a •ri
Z�
.o
O O
41
N
O
•ri
>, a)
00
,-4 co
•ri Cd N N
N r4
a) •14
C2.CV
3J
41 1.! -
L u
d W 0 GC+
C) cd
P$4
}+ u
v'
�
N+ Cl.
0
14
>
.0 'U
V O
O N
M W
C •r+
W A
tu-• d
>+
W
H
N
C+1
0
v
,4
w
•ri
u
91
O H
C
•.1 O
�4
41
O C +�
•4 W >,
b
a3i CC .4
z
old
o d
r-i
W $4 rGi
O
lei Q) 6 ►V+
d •ri O
W a) •n
41 Cd
lu+.
C >
td a) .,4 10
mo uP
Cn H Pr CO
al
N
CU
.b
•ri
N
C
O
u
N
N
u
r�
U
W
N
N
O
N
a
r-i
Cd
.A
V
N
c.
CA
tn M o o
N
03 o w o. ra
o
Ln cn Ln''' ra
cd d)
Cr w P
o
4)
•� ri
to r4
u O .. ca Q)
W
z
•v y $4
'
O u N )-C P.�
°r
0�N
.a u
r4 N
O
O Cd � u O
U 14
A
-4 R
ra
W a1
H a.c•
x u
5• H }4 O Cd r-4
v v a) O b
ri
Cd 1.)
1
p
N C
Co N O
O
W z
• O •.i C a) U rC
a) G
444J
pN
y1N -N 4
6v
lP""
td -
H
N 0)
CL O G
-4 to
4 r:
P4 U U p u u
U u
Cd •CO
u .0 O
W
O Cd
Gu GQ
p 14
rt �
Cd O
$4 H
d �
,4 vr4 r�i •r1
dddCd >>
mt.
6N
3'c)
bay
$C
to ri
)a
U rz Cd
to
rte!
UU U° u o
$4 3
cud N
r>i N r•i
a) Cd
° zz
0.4
PL, o44
zN
r• °
r4
y AI RPORT�
Ah1 77
PART I: AVIATION GOALS /POLICIES
Fundamental to the development of an effective, efficient and--equitable
metropolitan airports system plan is the identification of relevant aviation
goals and policies.' The six aviation goals identified below represent-broad
yet achievable 'metropolitan aspirations. The system plan is, in a sense, a
.temporaltgeographic depiction of these six goals:
Goals
The six metropolitan aviation goals are:
1. DEVELOP, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN AN AVIATION SYSTEM THAT ENHANCES THE
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PERSONS IN THE TWIN CITIES REGION..
2. PLAN, DEVELOP AND OPERATE AN AVIATION SYSTEM THAT WILL HELP PROMOTE
THE ORDERLY GRO14TH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGION.
3. PROVIDE AN AVIATION SYSTEM THAT IS SAFE, EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL.
.4. PROVIDE METROPOLITAN RESIDENTS WITH GOOD ACCESS TO STATE, NATIONAL
AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES._
S. PROVIDE AVIATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES THAT PRODUCE POSITIVE'EFFECTS
ON THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTS WITH MINIMAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON
THE PHYSICAL_ ENVIRONMENT.
G. ATTAIN A REGIONAL AVIATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESS THAT IS RE-
SPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS AND INTERESTS OF RESIDENTS, INDUSTRIES, GROUPS,
COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES AND AFFECTED AGENCIES -- WITH SUFFICIENT OPPOR-
TUNITY PROVIDED FOR THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION.
In -order to achieve the airports system inherent in the set of six aviation
goals, a parallel set of guides or policies have also been identified. A
policy may be defined either (1) as a course of action to follow to achieve
a desired goal or (2) a specific parameter (e.g., social, economic, environmental,
or legislative) that any related proposed action can be tested against. Both
types of aviation policies are included in this chapter.
3
AIRPORTS .
12/A/11/77
- Policies
..The following set of aviation policies are arranged by* "key" subject after
which the related policy or policies are stated. Their implications for the
revised Airports system plan are identified in the subject notations. No
order of priority is suggested here.
SYSTEM INVESTMENTS
1. Air transportation investments should.be made on the basis of need and
the ability of the metropolitan Area to support these.investments over
time in relation.to other metropolitan needs and investments. (Need
is defined as a deficiency of the system determined by policies and
plans contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide (rIDG)) •
2. Existing airport facilities should be developed to their maximum capa-
bility consistent with the MDG prior to investmeri� in new facilities.
PLANNING COORDINATION
3. Expansion of existing.airports and the development of new airports should
be planned to coincide with other development consistent with the MDG
and local comprehensive plans.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
t
4. Land use surrounding an airport in the Metropolitan Airport System should
be compatible with the role and function assigned to that airport; where
incompatibility exists, affected agencies and jurisdictions should
jointly participate in developing a program to eliminate the incompatibility.
(A discussion of compatible and incompatible land uses is given in Appendix
B, "Airport Influence Areas. "))
AIRPORT.OPERATIONS PRIORITIES
$. In the development and operation of the Metropolitan Airport System, the
priority of aviation activities should be accommodated in the following
order:
1) commercial air carrier passenger activity
2) commercial air cargo
3) business activity oriented to the Metropolitan Area
4) military activity
$) recreation and pleasure activity
6) training flights
7) other
AIRPORTS ZP
A/11/77
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY
6. State and federal environmental standards and adopted Metropolitan Council
policies (noise, air quality, water quality, etc.) must be major consi-
derations in the planning, design and operation of air transportation
projects and facilities.
SAFETY
7. State and federal safety standards must be a major consideration in the
planning, design, maintenance and operation of air transportation faci-
lities and services.
:GROUND ACCESSIBILITY
8. The Metropolitan Highway System (as defined in the Transportation Policy
Plan) in conjunction with the overall roadway network should provide
itietropolitan residents with the following travel times to the Metropolitan
Airports System elements. ;<
1)_ _. Major Airport: 60 minutes
2) Intermediate Airport: 30 minutes from within the Metropolitan
Urban Services Boundary (MUSA)
3) Minor Airport: 30 minutes from within the.MUSA
MDG AIRPORTS CHAPTER
9. The Airports chapter of the MDG should be reviewed every four years for
adequacy and responsiveness to changing conditions affecting aviation.
AIRPORTS µ
/IZ "/77 15 �..
PART Ii: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF METROPOLITAN
AVIATION FACILITIES
In order to systematically inventory and evaluate the various kinds and
levels of airport facilities serving the Metropolitan Area, a'method of
classifying airports by functional role operational characteristics was
developed to better understand the various elements in the revised Airports
system -Plan. The development of a new air facilities classification system
was in response to a need to clarify the existing state and federal classi-
fication system. The new airport classification system divides airports
into four categories: Major, Intermediate, Minor and Special Purpose. In
this manner, each metropolitan aviation facility can be defined functionally
in terms of the primary user and related service area and. also operationally
in terms of the types of aircraft accommodated, size of facility and extent of
facility influence area.
Central to the determination of a particular role for an airport are the sizes
of aircraft to be accommodated. The different categories of aircraft are
shown in Figure 9. Aircraft have been grouped primarily by gross weight
I
and are designated by letter from E (the smallest aircraft) to AA (the largest
aircraft). For example, the largest aircraft (Type AA) presently approved for
commercial service are the "wide body" jets (B -747, DC -10 and L -1011) that
weigh approximately three- quarters of a million pounds gross weight. The
smallest aircraft (Type E) in common use are those approximately 4000 pounds
in gross weight,
-The Major airport can accommodate all types of aircraft AA through E. The
Intermediate airport can accommodate C, D and E -type aircraft and the Minor
airport should accommodate only the D and E types. The Special Purpose Facility
can accommodate aircraft such as seaplanes, helicopters or gliders.
she role and operational characteristics of the four airport cfassification
categories are shown in Figure 10. The functional characteristics for airports
in each of the categories are described on page 18.
AIRPORTS
16/A/9 77
SFATIHG
CESSNA 130, PIPER 140 2 -6 CAPACITY 4
FIGURE 9. BASIC AIRCRAFT TYPES
.� r
CROSS V.r,.' - (C0015)
SEATING
AA
B 747,
DC. -10,.
L -1011
450 =800
CAPACITY. 350
._ ..._
.. -•.
SEATINIG
B -707,
DC -8,
C -880
250 -350
CA- PACITY 200-
!�0.
SEATING
DC -9, B -727,
C -440
120 -23Q
CAPACITY 150
-
t
SEATING
c
GS -II,
F -28,
DC -3
:. 12 -60
CAPACITY 40,
SLATING
,CAPCITY
BEECH
KING AIR,
CESSNA
402B 6 -1200
10.
SFATIHG
CESSNA 130, PIPER 140 2 -6 CAPACITY 4
FIGURE 9. BASIC AIRCRAFT TYPES
.� r
Al RPORTS
} ~�
A19/77 17 t
I
O co
au
$4 ..1
,•1 w
d +•1
m
Co
r-d
V
r-•1
5
00
O p
O O
N .7•
31
cJ
tJ
c3
O
3
r-d
.-1
6
1
00
00
00
co r•1
r-1
m
HW
d
3+
u
31
3+
eo - -
U
$1
6
a
0
,•1
aJ �4
cwi ° 4.
u � c
►azv
34
O
Iv
r4
B
t
Ln O
[�,!
C G
� E
"4 k
U 1�
ym
$4 G
pa N
i
00
0a
00
-d co
q
$4
O
a
3a
p
a�
. r-1
6
t4
0
O
10
I
O
O
1
1 3d
$4 +�1
1 G v
G O R
z °wa)
1
00oo
In o
N.7
W
'
F
W
U
u m
v1
13
m a3 ++
•
u v
. r
t4
k ��
O O G
w0."4co
.0 �
P. 3+ w a
4
H
O
H
.•1
44 4J _
HO
co
o
0
d
N
.. W
4m
tn
U
N
O .
1
41 ,
H
m
C u
F-1
-k
0 "4
t4
V-4
H
y
m
W G .0
.'{
uiu0
m
co
m •.4 0.
cci
G C U
H
V
+t v t
a1
m N
m
O
C
$4
0O
'
0
3 ao m
+1
GG d
m
o w 44
...
$4
U
IV 41
U
0
o
Q
0
u'0
war
t
O
C) ut�4
u
EH-1
30+
C, .
m
u 0
U
p U
�
a
u
r^•1 m
fn
u
3+
t-Z
u
p,
U
m
>% >+
•.t
'd O
cn
CC bo
4j
L
w
a ca
O
�' U
H
to
$4
U
CC
O
L)
ci
14'
ai
0
o
C;
gym
.0
rl
41
U
cl
cl ta 0)
L N
3a 44
W
W
Go
H
a�
W
-40
41 -04
O co
au
$4 ..1
,•1 w
d +•1
m
Co
r-d
V
r-•1
5
00
O p
O O
N .7•
31
cJ
tJ
c3
O
3
r-d
.-1
6
1
00
00
00
co r•1
r-1
m
HW
d
3+
u
31
3+
eo - -
U
$1
6
a
0
,•1
aJ �4
cwi ° 4.
u � c
►azv
34
O
Iv
r4
B
t
Ln O
[�,!
C G
� E
"4 k
U 1�
ym
$4 G
pa N
i
00
0a
00
-d co
q
$4
O
a
3a
p
a�
. r-1
6
t4
0
O
10
I
O
O
1
1 3d
$4 +�1
1 G v
G O R
z °wa)
1
00oo
In o
N.7
W
'
F
W
U
A.
0
tin
u
..1
�
o
a
.,.1 tU! W
L as u
zcunz
0
J.7
,r
b
u
a
t�
H
V-1 m 1
C V. u a
m «d u G
3 +mm0
c7=1G+4
W W N y
4.1
0
L $0.1
M tJ
U2 z
f 0
0
G
41
v1
13
•
. r
t4
u
.0 �
E
•r{- •.d
O
3< u
k
A .0 y
d
b
C3
N
iJ
d
W
A
m
.'{
Do
+t v t
a1
m N
m
:a
$4
tJ
m
IV 41
•rd
ccl O k
Q
o
war
t
C) ut�4
u
cn 00
m
c3
�
a
u
r^•1 m
�
cl to
3+
la
or.
w
cn
40 O
.0
w
a ca
10
41
$4
34
CC
O
h
ci
14'
0
o
b
0
O
.0
s 3+
m
L N
O
W
rn �
it
d
a�
u
-40
U4 .4
.,1
1)
tti
41
3a
O
4+ U
u m
.r+
•d0
m
e0m
uo,
a
dG
un3
ran
6u
V1 p4
r-1
N
Al RPO RTS
18/A/11/77
Maj or
The primary geographic /service focus of airports in this category is
international, national and state in scope. The primary users to be
accommodated at these facilities are the air carriers (scheduled,
commuter, and supplemental).
Intermediate
The primary geographic /service focus of airports in this category would
be national, state and metropolitan in scope. The primary users to be
accommodated at these facilities would be corporations,
Minor
The primary geographic /service focus of airports in this category would
be state and metropolitan in scope. =-Personal, business and instructional
uses would be accommodated at these facilities.
Special Purpose
The primary geographic /service focus of airports in this category
would be state and metropolitan in scope. Personal, business, military
instructional uses would be accommodated at these facilities.
How the new functional classification system of airports compares to existing
state and federal classifications is shown in Figure 11.
4 •
Figure 11 COMPARISON OF :1ETROPOLITAN, STATE,-AND FEDERAL
AIRPORT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
Metropolitan
Aviation System
Plan
I Major
Intermediate
Minor
I Special Purpose
State
Aviation System
Plan
Key
Key & Intermediate
Intermediate & Landing
Strip
N.A.
Federal.
Aviation System
Plan-
Scheduled Air
Transport
Basic Transport
General and Basic
Utility
Seaplane
Heliport
Stolport
i
AIRPORTS <7 = .,.:.._•
A/1-1177 19
.PART III: EXISTING AIRPORTS SYSTEM
Description of System
It is the function of the metropolitan airports system to accommodate the
various needs of aviation in the Area and the Upper Midwest. The existing
system provides facilities for air carrier transportation, business /recreational /
training flights, and helicopter and seaplane activities.
,The airports system is unique among the various Twin Cities.metropolitan
systems (e.g., parks, sewers, transit, highways) in that it is comprised of
three major physical components, i.e., (1) the landside component, (2) the
airside component and-(3) the air /land interface component. A thorough under-
standing of the physical /spatial nature of these three major components is
essential to efficient and safe airport planning. To change one component of
the total system (e.g., to add a new airport or to change approach and departure
paths) without simultaneously considering the other two integral components
could jeopardize the overall operations of the total system.
s
K
(_ Landside Component)
The landside component is defined as the spatial distribution of the system's
aviation facilities as well as the facilities themselves. As Figure 12 illus -
'trates, the existing system is comprised of one Major .airport (Minneapolis-St.-
Paul International), one Intermediate - airport (St. Paul Downtown), five Minor
airports (Flying Cloud, Crystal, Anoka, Lake Elmo, and South St. Paul Municipal),
and five Minor private public -use airports (Airlake Industrial, Gateway North,
Forest Lake, Benson and Northport) and one designated seaplane base at Rice Lake.
In 1976, the twelve airports based a total of 1703 GA aircraft (Types C,
D.and E) of which 995 aircraft or. approximately 70 percent of the total general
aviation fleet were based at Flying Cloud, Anoka and Crystal Airports (Figure 13).
Between 1950 and 1970, there was nearly a five -fold increase in the number of
general aviation aircraft based in the Metropolitan Area. Since 1970, this
growth trend in general aviation aircraft has moderated.
r,
AIRPORTS
WA/ 177
-: 1
�I
.,
ANOKA CO. - Q Forest Lake
O Ga +ewaV. Nor411
•- WAS.f"GTGN CO.
RrZ LAKE
ANOKA � SEAP NE BASE
CO�t�'CY�
Cr s +ai Benson Nor +*( -t
Y0
RAUSEY CO.
,.ENNEV/N CO. -
g LAKE
5S. PAUL ELMO
QLS- 57. PAL
® FLYING
St`CFERNATON L
CARVER Co. a-oUU - - UTK sT PALL
MUN tGt PAL
V f�
DAKOtA CO.
SCOTT CO.' O Airlake 1raus+riod
s s 10 a o as
Publicly Owned Facilities Privately Owned Facilities
Major Airport Q Seaplane
Q Intermediate Airport 0 Heliport
0 Minor Airport O Minor Airport
FIGURE 12.; TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AVIATION FACILITIES, 1977
J
AIRPORTS'
A/11177
1,800
1,700
1;.600
$OC
F-+
w '
500
U
P4
400
rn '300
a�
-200
o-
w :100
as
r-,
z. 0
1,703
.� ro
O 41
ti dJ /
U N O W O
U (V
� VJ4
0 4j
N q U
O
co
c.
a r-,
-- - , 41 ,
cQ q
k�
a oa
FIGURE 13. GA BASED AIRCRAFT BY AIRPORT IN TWIN CITIES
METROPOLITAN AREA, 19.76
AIRPORTS _� a
• u
22%A/m/ 77 ,02
The number of general aviation operations at the seven publicly owned airports
in the Area as shown in Figure 14 has reflected, to a large extent, the fluctua-
tions in the Area's economy. These seven airports represented 92 percent of the
total 1,340,000 air operations in the Area in 1976. Flying Cloud Airport is '--
the most active both in the Metropolitan Area and in the state.
(_Airside Component)
--The second major component of the Area's airports system is the actual
airspace for. - flight operations which has been identified as the airside
component. This component.is also known as Minneapolis Terminal Control Area
(TCA) as designated by the FAA. The Minneapolis TCA was implemented on
February 28, 1974, as one of a number at major hub airports in the nation. The
TCA as presently defined incorporates a large part of the airspace within
the Metropolitan Area..-
The primary purpose of the TCA is to separate aircraft of different performance
characteristics so that the larger and higher performance jets can arrive and
depart at the major airport from higher altitudes without encountering smaller
and slower aircraft which are not under the control -of Air Traffic Control
(ATC). This allows aircraft to approach and depart on a number of-tracks which
has a beneficial effect of abating noise under some conditions. The.require-
ments for an aircraft to enter the TCA, which is a positive controlled airspace,
are that the aircraft have radio and navigational equipment, be authorized by
ATC to enter the airspace, and not travel greater than 200 knots when operating
within the TCA. Specific procedures have been established by FAA for flight
and traffic procedures related to the TCA, to ensure the most efficient and safe
passage of aircraft into, out of and through the metropolitan airspace.
The Minneapolis Terminal Control Area takes the form of an inverted four layer'
"wedding cake" centered on MSP International Airport (Fig.15). The first tier radii
extend from MSP International outwards six nautical miles and *from the ground
surface to 1,300 feet. The circumference of this center ring "touches" the
Minneapolis and St. Paul Downtowns and incorporates a'significant portion of
r,1RPORTS Eel �a
23
A 1 77
1400
1200
1000
N
G
-0 800
u
cd
H
u
a
0
400
H
u
H
Vt
6
W
O
,0) 200
G
a3
N.
O
.0
H
0
1964 1968 1972 1975
- FIGURE 14. AIR OPERATIONS AT PUBLICLY- 01•R ED AIRPORTS IN
THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITKN AREA, 1964 -1976,
'AIRPQRTS .. o ,
24/A/1-r/77
t
a-
LL!
D
U
D
H
W
U
Q
a
CC
a
z
Q
.0
CL
0
ui
N
LL
H
U
. Z
Ltd
r
LL
CC
C9
LL
z
ORTS
25
the present metropolitan built -up core. The second tier radii,extending hori-
zontally 8.5 nautical miles, begin approximately 1,300 feet above the ground
This tier covers most of the Central Cities
and extend upward to 2,000 feet.
k
and several suburbs south of the Minnesota River. The third tier radii,extending
horizontally 12 nautical miles, begin approximately 2,000 feet above ground level
and extend upward to 3,000 feet. This tier covers approximately 90 percent
of the presently built -up Metropolitan Area. The fourth or top tier _
radii extend 20 horizontal nautical miles and from approximately 3,000 to 8,000
feet above ground level. This tier's circumference "touches" Hudson, Wisconsin.,
to the east,- Anoka to the north, Mound to the west and Rosemount to the south.
The number and dimensions of these four rings were determined by several factors:
(a) the nature of aircraft operations, (b) the distribution of existing airports,'
(c) local airspace obstructions and (d) established federal air routes.
From.a system planning.perspective, the locating of additional airports within
the inner three rings of the established Twin Cities Area TCA could be poten -=
tially adverse to the scheduled airline operations at 14SP International Airport.
(AirfLand Interface Component) ` K
The most critical phases of aircraft operations occur as an aircraft is pre-
paring to land or takeoff. The procedures and aviation facilities.involved
in aircraft landings and takeoffs represent the Air /Land Interface Componcnt.
During landing and takeoff, aircraft are guided by radar and radio communica-
tions from the Air Route Traffic Control Center located at Farmington and by the
air traffic controllers located at individual airports. In the Metropolitan
Area there are airport control towers at MSP International, St. Paul Downtown,
Flying Cloud and Crystal Airports. A part -time control tower is operated
by the Minnesota Air National Guard at Anoka County Airport. At the remaining
publicly owned airports, i.e., Lake Elmo and So: St. Paul, the pilots operate
according to a standard operating procedure as established for each
airport.
The primary objective of having these operational controls is to ensure the
efficiency and safety of numerous and different aircraft operations occuring
'AIRPORTS "
._ 26/A/1 77 _..
e
in a limited airspace area, under continuously changing weather.conditi
involving aircraft and ons and
Pilots with differing capabilities.
The safety of persons in the air and on the ground is further+ enhanced through
the recognition and control of airspace hazards. Both the Mn /DOT and -the FAA
have established rules and regulations concerning the zoning of airports to p o r -
tect its airspace from potential airspace hazard's. In the Twin Cities Area
this involves primarily the control of man -made obstructions in the vicinity
of airports and airways. An airport airspace zone is th-
f ree dimensional in nature
and consists of several distinct imaginary surfaces as depicted in the following
schematic diagram.(Figure 16).
V -
. .vIG'JRE 16. SCi DiATTC � •. � .• ` �'`` • ��� '
r��'�q OF AIRPpRT AIRSPACE SURFACES '
•r
Al RP0AT,5 w __
A/11777 27
r -
In addition to airspace safety, the Mn /DOT (Aeronautics) has established zoning
controls over land -use activities in the approaches to runways and the immediate
airport vicinity as depicted in Figure 17. No structures should be located
within A Zone (2/3 of runway length); density of development is restricted in
B Zone (1/3 of runway length); in Zone A, D and C zones no use shall be allowed that
i _causes electronic interference for airport and aircraft communications, impairs
visibility, creates glare or light arrangements that distract.or confuse air-
craft pilots. Outside the airport airspace zones, objects are considered
_obstructions to air navigation if they extend more than 500.feet above ground
level or more than 200 feet above ground level within three nautical miles of
an airport.
'Airport airspace and land -use zoning districts will be established by the
respective airport authorities and local governmental units to reflect the
Mn /DOT requirements and coordinated through the Metropolitan Council's System
Statements process authorized under the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
t
G . iotcG
FIGURE 17: SCIIEYL. TIC DIAGRAM OF Ai'_?.PORT LA 4D USE ZONES
Al RPO RTS ar
28/ A %11777
The form of an airport airspace zoning district will be different for each air-
port to reflect the size, orientation and configuration of its runways; type
of instrumentation for aircraft operations; and the height and location of .
'existing obstructions. The Mn /DOT airport airspace zoning criteria applied
to the Area's publicly owned airports reflect the varying extent and nature
of air operations among the facilities as shown in Figure'18.
FIG'c, 18. '11ml C17.IES P'1EMPOLIMI AIRPORT AIRSPACE ZONMS , 1977
Al RPO RTS
A/11777
Performance of Existing System
A regional system plan provides for the accommodation and improvement of the
total range of elements that comprise the existing system in--addition to
proposed new elements. Therefore, it was necessary, in developing the 1990
Metropolitan Airports System Plan, to evaluate the performance of the existing
system in terms of: (1) those elements of the system that are presently
performing satisfactorily, i.e., meet Metropolitan Council policies, or
fed.eral /state standards; (2) those elements of the system that are presently
performing unsatisfactorily, i.e.., do not meet Metropolitan Council policies
or federal /state standards and are judged non - correctable; and (3) those elements
of the system whose performance is questionable, i.e., do not'meet Metropolitan
Council policies or federal /state standards but are judged to be correctable.
Before additions or modifications to the existing elements should be made in
the context of the overall system plan, it is necessary to understand the
developmental and environmental performance of these elements under present
operational circumstances.
Seven criteria were identified fdr the evaluation of the existing airports
N .
system. These criteria are: -(I) demand /capacity, (2) efficiency of facility
use, (3) ground accessibility, (4) land -use compatibility, (S) environmental
compatibility, (6) safety, and (7) fiscal. Utilizing these seven criteria, a
generalized performance evaluation of the individual elements in the existing
airports-system is presented in Figure 19. Determination of the capacity of
each facility and comparing it with present use becomes one of the important
steps in analyzing the performance of the.airport system as it exists today.
In general, the existing metropolitan airports system is performing satis-
factorily except for the continuing concern about aircraft noise associated
with the operation of MSP International. The existing system is presently
satisfactorily accommodating the present demand level and,in general, is
presently neither over or under - utilized. All the airports are located well
within the acceptable ground travel time of the majority of users in the
Al RP4 RTS 1 , a
30 /A lr
F opolitan Area. The land -use compatibility in general is satisfactory with
possible exception of some residential development in the vicinities of
International, Crystal and South St. Paul Airports.
The cumulative impacts of the existing airports system upon the metropolitan
ecological'systems appears to be tolerable, although the effects of aircraft
emissions have not been assessed in detail and noise associated with aircraft
operations at MSP International continue to be of concern.
Historically, the overall airports system has proven to be -one of the safest
in the nation, although on an individual facility basis, improvements could
be made in terms of runways and taxiways, and additional aircraft navigational
and landing aids that would further enhance the overall safety and efficiency
-of the system should be installed.
• From a fiscal point of view, the MAC airports are supported by -the funds
generated by aviation users. These funds have not only provided for continuing
upgrading of MSP International but also the development of additional airport
facilities to relieve general aviation pressures at MSP while at the same
time providing additional adequate facilities for all general aviation users.
Also, the other publicly owned airport, South St. Paul, has demonstrated satis-
factory fiscal performance. The publicly owned airports identified in figure 19
accommodate over 90 percent of the based aircraft and landings /takeoffs (i.e.,
operations) in the Area as well as all of the Area's airline passengers which
are handled solely.at MSP International.
(MinneaQolis -St. Paul International)
The 1976 airline pas - senger demand was approximately 7.3 million. The capacity.
of the passenger handling facilities at the airport (i.e., passenger terminal
building, apron and auto parking), in terms of the improvements that -are either
underway or programmed, was estimated to be 10 million annual passengers. The
demand placed on the airports landing area totaled 252,000 aircraft operations
AIRPORTS
A111:177
FIGURE 19- GENERAVIZED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MATRIX.FOR EXISTING
;
- TWIN CITIES
METROPOLITAN-AIRPORTS; -1976
AIRPORT CIASSIFICATIO4
MINOR
MINOR
EVALUATION CRITERIA
i1AJOR
11si -
INT.
3T1s
(PUBLICLY OMZFE �
1 CFtkl `��Ti� cF 7�s
SIP
(PRIVATELY
owNr.D )*
Demand /Capacity
Q
Efficiency of Facility Use
S
S
S Q S S
S
f
Q
A+ouessibilicy
t
Land Use Compatibility
Q
S
S S S Q
Q
Environmental Compatibility
Q
S
S S S S
S
2
S
Q
Safety
S
s
s s s s
s
t
Fiscal
LEGEND.
EVALUATION DESICNAI'IONS AIRPORT ABBREVIATIONS
S - Satisfactory MSP - Minneapolis -St. Paul International
- Questionable STP - SE. Paul Downtown.
Unsatisfactory VCR - Flying Cloud
I - Unknown ANE - Anoka County
iLM - Lake Elmo
CRY - Crystal
S S'1'1' - South St. Paul
* Gateway North, Forest. Lake, Benson, Northport and Airlaka Industrial
in 1976. The capacity of the la><ding area considering the current aircraft
mix, air traffic control procedures, etc., calculated in the recently completed
(6)
airport Master Plan study was estimated to be 370,000 annual aircraft operations.
(Intermediate and Minor Airports)
Comparing the aircraft operations in 1976 with the landing area capacity at
j the publicly owned Intermediate and Minor Airports revealed that demands at six
of these facilities were within existing capacity. However, some runway/
taxiway improvements are necessary at these airports to enhance operational
capability, overall efficiency and safety. Examples of such improvements are
(1) the new, longer primary runway at St. Paul Downtown Airport and (2) the
runway extension and taxiway additions proposed at Flying Cloud. A comparison
was also made of the number of based aircraft with the available storage space
at the six publicly owned general aviation airports. This analysis revealed
that today very little aircraft storage space is available at Flying Cloud,
AIRPORTS --�' -�
32 A -lr 7
' 1
Lake Elmo and South St. Paul Airports. In the case of St. Paul Downtown
the last available area for construction of aircraft storage hangars is being
developed on the west side of the airport. All the space in -this west
building area at St. Paul Downtown has been leased and should be occupied
within the,next year. However, aircraft storage is still available at Anoka.
County and Crystal Airports. Both the existing and estimated potential storage
capabilities -for GA aircraft at the system's airports are important in deter-
mining future system improvements. These improvements are addressed in detail
in Part IV.
c
'
x
of RPORTS . c
r
A/11/77 33 -- �:-.
.PART, tv: AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN.
The performance of the existing Twin Cities airports system under current .
metropolitan development constraints and aviation demands was addressed in
-Part III of this Chapter. The performance of'the overall existing system was
assessed to be satisfactory. However, the determination of how the existing
airports system will perform under future metropolitan constraints and aviation
'demands is central in establishing an appropriate basis for revising the 1990.
metropolitan airports system plan.
To establish a basis for evaluating the performance of the existing system
under 1990/2000 aviation demands and development constraints it is necessary
to determine: (1) the maximum expandable capacity, both phyiical and environ-
mental, of existing airports; (2) the projected 1990/2000 scheduled commercial
air passenger and air cargo traffic; (3) the 1990/2000 forecast of new GA air-
craft by type; and (4) the 1990/2000 forecasts of commercial and GA .flight
operations. .
I
In applying commercial and general aviation forecast. data to the. existing
system's expandable capacities and development constraints referenced in the
Metropolitan Development Framework, related deficiencies and adverse impacts
can be. identified. The different ways that these deficiencies and impacts can
be resolved represent alternative airport systems. It is from the evaluation
of these alternative solutions that the revised Metropolitan Airports System
Plan has evolved.
System Capacity
The Metropolitan Airports system capacity can be defined both in terms of the
physical capability of the existing airports to absorb future aviation demand
and in the Area's environmental capacity to absorb with minimum adverse impact
increased aircraft and related operations. Although the physical or structural
capacity of the system is fairly easily defined, the environmental consequence
of increasing aviation activities is yet to a large extent speculative.
AIRPORTS
34/ A/11*177
1
The physical capability of the existing airports system is usually defined in
terms of runway and storage capacities. Runway capacity is defined as the
number of aircraft that runway facilities can accept for aircraft takeoffs
and landings. Runway capacity in this analysis is expressed.as the number of
aircraft which reflect aircraft operations that can be accommodated on an
annual basis at a particular airport given an acceptable level of delay.
Storage capacity is the number of aircraft that can be stored-in existing and /or
new hangars. "Tie- down" capacity for transient aircraft is considered to
remain available and sufficient at each airport and has not-been estimated.
System - wide, the maximum expandable runway capacity for the airports, as shown
in Figure 20, could accommodate 655 additional aircraft while storage capacity
at all existing airports could be expanded to accommod,.te 1,634 additional air-
craft.
By the year 2000, it has been projected that the Area will possess an additional
1,400 general aviation aircraft. Being that the maximum expandable runway
capacity (excluding MSP International Airport) can accommodate only. 655 more
general aviation aircraft, addititonal capacity for 745 general aviation
Y
aircraft will be required.
1990/2000 Metropolitan Aviation Demand Forecasts
Six separate 1990/2000 Metropolitan aviation demand forecasts were developed.
These are for: (1) scheduled airline passengers, (2) scheduled commercial air
cargo tonnage, (3) scheduled commercial airline operations, (4) number of general
aviation based aircraft by type, (5) the total number of general aviation opera-
tions, and (6) the number of military aircraft operations.
Forecasts (1), (2) and (3) were based upon the 1976 FAA revisions of its re-
gional aviation forecasts. Forecasts (4) and (5) are original projections
made specifically for this system plan revision. Military activity (6) was
assumed to remain unchanged through the forecast period. The general aviation
forecasts were based upon the primary assumption that demand for additonal air-
AIRPORTS
./A/ii/77 35
. ...........
tu
44
UI
o
ul
8 8 8
z
0
W
z
uj
0.
- M. -
14
P-4
O
0
P4
pq
H
PLI
.Z.
0
F4
E-4
-:4
F4
C)
PZ4
tu
44
UI
8 8 8
z
0
W
z
uj
0.
- M. -
14
P-4
O
0
P4
pq
H
PLI
.Z.
0
F4
E-4
-:4
F4
C)
PZ4
/'►{ i lF V{ 1 1 J
i
36/A/I1 "/77
craft will be directly related to metropolitan growth and. related incomes. The
overall - procedure used in projecting general aviation aircraft is shown in
Figure 21. These six forecasts for the. seven- county .Metropolitan Area are
shown in Figure 22.
The need for additional GA airports by 1990 and 2000, respectively, was deter-
mined by comparing the 1990 /2000 projected demands in terms of. the ultimate
on -site expansion potential of runway capacity and storage capacity at each
,
of the existing airports. The procedure for determining the number of required
new GA airports under the four airports system alternatives is illustrated in
Figure 23.
System Alternatives
Although the revised metropolitan Airport System Plan target date is 1990, the
system's demand /capacity was analyzed through the year 2000, This analysis
revealed that no new airport facility is required before 1990 regardless what
alternative is considered. However, between 1990 and 2000, one'or more
facilities will be needed under certain alternative conditions,
t
Alternative I maximizes the development and operational expansion potential of all
existing publicly owned airports. This means that existing privately owned airports
would not be protected nor would any new airport sites be acquired or developed,
Alternative II maximizes the developmental and operational on -site expansion
potential of all existing publicly owned airports. Additionally, the following
privately owned airports would initially_be protected and acquired as needed:
Gateway North, Forest Lake, Northport and Ai.rlake Industrial,
Alternative III maximizes expansion potential of all existing publicly owned
airports plus identifies one new airport search area in southern Dakota County
Alternative IV utilizes the developmental and operational on-site expansion
AIRPORTS
A /K/77
1990/2000 Metropolitan
Population /Income /Employment
Projections
Number of Existing
Type D and E Aircraf Number of Existing
Type C Aircraft
F
New Type New Type C
D & E Aircraft Aircraft
1990/2000 1990/2000
Total Total -
Types D & E Type C
Aircraft Aircraft
1990/2000 •1993/2000
Total CA Operations
1990/2000
FIGURE 21.•: GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT AND OPERATIONS FORECAST
PROCEDURE
1976
Airline P ^.ssengers
(15)
(Annual empl /dept in Millions
7.3
-Air Cargo (Thousand Tons)
140
Airline Aircraft Operations
132
(Thousands)
2100
Ceneral Aviation Based
1703
Aircraft
(1.6)
General Aviation Aircraft
1.2
Operations (Millions)
6.0
Military (Thousands)
5.0
14
(15)
16
i
290
(454)
620
166
(186)
206
2100
(2300)
2500
1.5
(1.6)
1.8
5.0
(5.5)
6.0
2000
Low
(Mid)
Hi¢h.
18
(20)
22
472--
(686)
1140
214
(252)
291
2800
(3100)
3500,
2.0
(2.2)
2.5.
5.0
(5.5)
6.0
FIGURE 22. 1900/2000 rLTROPOLITAN AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS
.IRPORTS r
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING NUMBER AND TYPES
OF REQUIRED NEW AIRPORTS, 1990 and 2000
lo
lo
(99012000 SYSTIEM
DEMAND ALTERNATiYES -
rGRECASTS S, II. IIL
r•l•� f� - - - --
EXISTING REQUIRED REQUIRED
SYSTEM UNSATISFIED NEW U14SATISFIED NEW
ABSORPTION DEMtkND AIRPORTS DEMAND AIRPORTS
(1976 -1990) BY 1990 (1990 -2000) BY 2000
1990 14ETROPOLITAN AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN
FIGURE 23. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING NUMBER AND TYPES OF REQUIRED
NEW SYSTEM AIRPORTS
AIRPORTS%'%
39/A lI 7
potential of all publicly owned airports and maintains the operational capa-
bility of the four following privately owned airports; Gateway North, Forest.
Lake, Northport and Airlake. Also two new airport search ardas are identified
-7 one in southern Dakota County and the other in central Hennepin County.
Alternative•Systems Evaluation
The existing metropolitan airports system's performance under projected 1990/
•2000 demand forecasts was evaluated in terms of four airport alternative metro-
politan system configurations described above. These four system alternatives
respond to the set of aviation policies established in Part I of this guide
chapter but under differing development emphases and conditions. The mid -range
1990/2000 forecasts (Figure 22) were used to define the system's 1990/2000
aviation demand parameters. In each of the four alternatives, the Minneapolis
St. Paul International Airport was judged to possess the expandable capacity
-to absorb the total projected 2000 commercial air transport forecasts. It is
important to stress that this conclusion is based upon the assumption that
the forecasted unconstrained general aviation demand will be absorbed by the "re-
liever" airports in the system. In 1976, 45 percent of MSP's 252,000 total opera-
tions were general aviation relatdd. It is assumed that the proportion of total
operations resulting from general aviation is expected to remain constant or
decrease through the year 2000 as a result of discouraging such activity at
MSP International. Consequently, the basis for the consideration of four
alternative metropolitan .airports systems was primairly to identify and evaluate
the different ways that the projected 1990/2000 GA demand could be accommodated
at the system's "reliever. I airports.
A comparative evaluation of the four identified airports system alternatives
in terms of the seven critiera utilized in the evaluation of the existing
system's performance in Part III.of this Guide chapter indicated several
"unsatisfactory" or "questionable" impacts under Alternatives I, II and III.
These impacts relate especially to the failure of the Alternative I, II and
Ai RPORTS
40/A1I1/77 �4
III to meet the projected 1990/2000 demands, to maximize the potential capa-
bilities of existing facilities, to reflect the metropolitan distributions
of future aviation demands, and to be compatible with existing land uses under
expanded operational conditions. However, environmental compatibility in terms
of noise was judged questionable under all four alternatives; in terms of air
quality, questionable under all four alternatives at MSP I.nternational only;
whereas water quality was assessed as meeting federal /state standards at all
facilities under the four system alternatives.
1990 System Plan
The Metropolitan Airports System Plan (Figure 24) takes into account the sys-
tematic evaluation of the projected 1990/2000 aviation..demand forecasts com-
pared to the estimated maximum development potential of the existing system
within the context of the aviation goals and policies identified in Part I
of this Guide chapter.
The System Plan: 1) best accommodates the aviation needs of the Area through
the year 2000; 2) maximizes the use of existing facilities in a sequential
4
manner through the year:2000; 3) provides for' flexibility in meeting the 1990
and 2000 general aviation demand by.allowing for additional absorption at the
two new airport sites in case one or more of the existing facilities cannot
be developed as projected for environmental•or other reasons; and 4) is the
most.cost- effective in terms of the eventual (post -1990) construction of•two
new general aviation airports in lieu of purchasing and developing the privately
owned airports that presently meet system standards. Combined, these privately
owned airports can be expanded to only 50.percent of the potential capacities
of the proposed two new general aviation Minor airports.
(Plan Elements)
The Metropolitan Airports System incorporates the five existing Metropolitan
Airports Commission's airports, the South St. Paul Municipal Airport, four t
existing privately owned airports, the Rice Lake Seaplane Base, in addition
S
to two new Minor airport search areas (Figure 25).1990 status of these plan
elements is given in Figure 25.
r>rrIr%Jn iJ
A/1-17ZZ
'tm Metropolitan /airports System Plan
SYSTEM - F--EMENTS
AIRPORT FACiUTtES
Mawr
PublKty Owned
Q Infarmadla}a
® Minor "
O Minor o
13 $ea PrIvQJeiy Owned
�lane Bc>� �
. .
0. MINOR AIRPORT c FARCli AREAS
a .
1450 NUCIPAU ARTERIALS .
hiETRCPCIlTAR URPAN
SMfCr ARCM
GATEWAY nuns
�AWSTRW A;VCKA 0 ME- ST LAKE
:.
.1 tk1T� r =i-' —� SEAP ViE MSc
AInrR3 �L--
_ f
A wasHINGTCN
3
=CRYS4
=zz
�n-
• — - - - -____ _--- _�— C.1K._ EL`S
_ __ _� -- - =_� -^ _ —_ — ^r =--=t
Mai, -opot, Urban !==:Z: == _ —.--_- _.'�-= '�°�.. --. =—^ f= PJRPORT
Service rea
m:� °-
�-- fir — . -- i"•� S -�T. ti 9T:
�7A11� 1�^.0
^�� _ — = + Uti :PhL ?iYF6f�Jl.
ii UD� TNTaRNXICN�rARVCR FLYING C1A
!
—�°"clJT
--=
_alaftvzt __y` ;Cwc� �Mrx�AIH F�iJ1 =
SCOTT
IIIKL,*NK$ INDUSTRIAL:-,
AIRLrR-r
-
-.a aI
AIRPORTS
.��
r'E
42/A/11/77
FIGURE 25. 1990 STATUS OF METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Classif.
County Operational Noteworthy Facility
e;r nrr NAme Location Classif. Improvements
Publicly 0•.med
Non - Precision
Additional runways, to
building area,
MAJOR Mpls. -St. Paul Int'1.
Hennepin
Precision
IFR
(Wold- Cahmberlain Field)
control tower. ••
INTERIHEDIATE St. Paul Downtown
Ramsey
Precision
IFR
(Holman Field)
services, expd.
area, improved landing
Anoka County, Blaine
Anoka
Precision
IFR
(Janes Field)
. Non - Precision
Site selection and land
Flying Cloud
Hennepin
Non-Precision
IFR
t
to
It
Hennepin
Non- Precisio
Crystal
IFR
Lake Elmo
So. St. Paul Municipal
Search Area A
Search Area B
Privately__ Ow, ed
No change in role, run-
way extension to aid
noise abatement, im-
proved instrumentation,
taxiways, aprons,
terminals,-auto parking
and access all improved.
New runway, new building
area, improved instru-
mentation and ground
service facilities.
Role change, runway
construction,instrument-
ation, improved lighting,
aprons, building areas,
ground services.
MINOR Runway construction, im-
proved landing aids and
services.
n No role change, mainten-
ance of all airport areas
and services.
Xl-
Washington
Non - Precision
Additional runways, to
building area,
IFR
ways,
services, landing aids,
control tower. ••
Dakota
Non - Precision
Overall sophistication of
bldg.
services, expd.
area, improved landing
aids.
Hennepin
. Non - Precision
Site selection and land
IFR
banking, master planning,
EIS preparation.
Dakota
to
It
Gateway North Industrial Anoka VFR
Forest Lake Washington
Northport Washington
Airlake Industrial Dakota
Anoka
Pie-e. Lake
No changes assumed. '
It
if
AIRPORTS, ; <,
E
AJITJ77
43
(General Aviation Airport Search Areas)
System analysis of the future metropolitan general aviation demand indicates
a need for two new minor airports between 1990 and 2000 in the Seven- County
Area. Identification of the general location of search areas to meet the projected
need involved an in -depth analysis of the 1976 --2000 *metropolitan general aviation
demand increment as related to estimated expandable on -site capacities of the
existing publicly owned airports. The projected 1990/2000 metropolitan GA
demand distributions compared to 1976 based aircraft and estimated on -site
capacities are depicted in Figure 26. Also shown. in Figure'26 are the primary de-
mand areas aril the approximate metropolitan centroid of 1990/2000 general aviation
demand. The primary demand area depicted in Figure 26 incorporates 90 percent
of total 1990/2000 demand. The demand centroid is located in south - central
Minneapolis. Presently, there are four publicly owned GA airports within the
30- minute cordon from this demand centroid: Flying Cloud, Crystal, St. Paul
Downtown and South St. Paul Municipal. The current combined capacity of these
four minor airports can accommodate 1,250 GA aircraft and related 692,000 annual
aircraft operations. The improved on -site capacity of these four minor airports
has been estimated to accommodatela total of 1,665 G4 aircraft and 1,165,000
related annual operations. As noted in Figure 26, the two airports (Crystal
and Flying Cloud) presently located west of the Mississippi River are approaching
maximum on -site capacity yet reflect a demand for 600 additional aircraft by
the year 2000. This demand combined with the constrained capacity at MSP
International represents 700 aircraft or approximately 64 percent of the total
metropolitan system general aviation demand between 1976 - 2000.
Within the airport accessibility guidelines set forth in Aviation Policy 8,
there remains an unsatisfied demand of approximately 500 GA aircraft in the
west half of the Metropolitan Area by the year 2000. Simply, there will be no
additional on -site developmental - capacity at the present system's airports in
_Hennepin and Dakota Counties to meet the.projected 1976 -2000 general aviation
demand increment.
AIRPORTS
44/A/11 7 ? � -- --
F 1
AIRPORTS
A/L3177 45
r:
FIGURE 27. PERCENT OF YEAR 2000 DISTRIBUTED GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT
THAT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED AT EXISTING PUBLICLY OWNED
AIRPORTS,
AIRPORTS
46/All! 77
Minor Airport Search Area
Minor Airport Search Area
1 3 10
FIGuRE 28. RATIONALE -FOR SELECTION OF THE TWO GENERAL
AVIATION MINOR AIRPORT SEARCH AREAS
M
AIRPORTS
A/11 "/77 47
Figure 27 identifies the unsatisfied 2000 general aviation demand increment by
I Metropolitan Area county compared to the percent of total metropolitan distri-
bution. Figure 28 illustrates the rationale for selecting Search Area "A" in
Hennepin County and Search Area "B" in Dakota County. The locations of airport
search areas A and B were based upon the following considerations:
Relationship to future metropolitan aviation demand distribution
- Accessibility to the future demand distribution
-- Relationship to existing system airports
Proximity to existing airspace obstructions
- Relationship to existing and proposed land use
- Relationship to natural resources
Airport search area "A" -- located in west - central Hennepin County -- provides
for significant general aviation demand within the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area portions of Hennepin and Carver Counties.
Search area "A" has excellent accessibility to the unsatisfied 'demand area via
Minnesota Highway 55 and the Interstate sytem. This search area provides
maximum relief to the Crystal and Flying Cloud Airports and is situated for safe
and efficient airspace utilization in relation to existing airport operations.
Existing land -use patterns (with special emphasis on residential development),
the locations of rural centers and freestanding communities and natural con-
straints to airport development such as lakes, wetlands, poor soils and.steep
slope areas and related parks and open space were considered in delineating
search area "A."
The approach noted in identifying the location of airport search area "A"
was also used in the locating of search area "B" in southern Dakota County.
Search area "B" was selected to relieve the remaining unsatisfied general aviation
demand at Flying Cloud Airport as well as to absorb (together with So. St. Paul
Municipal) the unsatisfied MSP International CA demand. Two airports in Dakota
County that could have acted as relievers were recently closed. Southport Air -
port in Apple Valley was abandoned in 1973, and Skymeadow, another private
AIRPORTS •. • .
48/A/11777
facility, was closed in 1977 This decrease in capacity and restricted capabi-
lity of Flying Cloud, MSP International, and South St. Paul Municipal Airport
indicate the eventual need for a new minor airport in south - central Dakota
County. Excellent access from the primary demand center to search area "B"
is provided by .Interstate 35W, Cedar Ave., (Dakota'Co. 23), and Minn. No. 3.
No airspace conflicts exist with other publicly owned airports and airspace
obstructions are presently minimal. Also, potential adverse impacts on
developed areas, parks and open spaces, natural resources and agricultural
land should be minimal in this search area.
The specific site for a minor airport within search areas "A "-and "B" should
be identified as soon as feasible. The facilities would be developed when
future aviation demands warrant. The planning implications of the two
.indentified general aviation minor airport search areas are discussed under
"Implementation Guidelines," Part V.
(Special Purpose Facilities)
Special purpose aircraft considered in the development of the System Plan are
gliders, helicopters and seaplanes.
t
A small number of gliders are operated within the region's airspace. The
majority of these aircraft are based at private - public use facilities. The
Airports System Plan identifies several private - public use airports in the
region where it is anticipated that future service for glider activities will
continue to be provided.
In 1976, there were about 90 helicopters based in the Metropolitan Area of
which 70 were Army Reserve and Minnesota Air National Guard aircraft based
principally at St. Paul Downtown Airport. The bulk of the private helicopter
fleet is based at South St. Paul Municipal airport. Five private -use heliports
exist at certain hospitals for use in conjunction with their emergency services.
As most other helicopter operations occur at existing public airports and as this
practice is expected to continue, no heliports have been designated as part of
the Airports System Plan.
A1r�PORTS, ,J,
%a
49
A/1 7
Minnesota, with its many lakes acid rivers, is among the top ten states in
the nation in the number of registered seaplanes. In 1976 there were over
forty privately owned seaplane aircraft based in-the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area. About fifty percent of these aircraft are based at Rice Lake Seaplane
Base. Most of the remaining aircraft are moored at-private-personal use bases
located oa different metropolitan lakes. Also, two seaplane facilities are
presently in use on the Mississippi River at St.. Paul Downtown Airport and at
Wipline, a privately owned commercial seaplane facility, in Inver Grove Heights.
These two seaplane facilities were not included in the System Plan due to
operational restrictions. The'state presently allows seaplane operations at 56
of the Area's 950 lakes. As there are increasing restrictions on seaplane
operations in the Metropolitan Area, the Metropolitan Council, in cooperation
with the Mn /DOT, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, MAC, local govern-
mental units, and aviation users, will initiate a study during 1978 to define
the needs and actions necessary to protect a site or sites specifically for
seaplane activities. -
(The Question of a Major Airport Search Area)
The identification of a search area for a new major airport in the 1972 Air-
ports Guide Chapter was in resporse to the conclusion that such a facility
would be needed in the Metropolitan Area by 1990. Considerable concern for
a new major airport was generated in the late 1960's and early 1970's as the
result of continuing rapid unconstrained growth in'scheduled commercial
airline operations at MSP International. In response to this concern, the
Metropolitan Council initiated an investigation of possible future sites for
a new major airport within the boundaries of the Seven - County -Area. This
investigation resulted in the identification and selection of an approxi-
mately 45 square -mile search site in Anoka County (known as'the North Search
Area component of the 1972 Airports Guide Chapter).
Scheduled commercial aviation projections in the early 1970's indicated that
the capacity of MSP International would be reached in the middle or late 1980's
with concomitant adverse noise impacts due to an anticipated related signi-
ficant increase of jet traffic. Also, the concern was voiced that as the
number of operations increased to maximum-facility capacity, congestion in
AIRPORTS
5oA/ll° /77 J7 _
terminal, parking, service and highway facilities would become intolerable
at and adjacent to the airport facility, especially at peak flight hours. Since
the early 1970's, the Metropolitan Airports Commission completed a master
plan study of MSP International and determined that the physical capacity of the
facility can be improved to accommodate scheduled commercial air traffic beyond
the year 2000. Specific improvements include a new ancillary terminal, expanded autc
parking, access roads and a runway extension to reduce aircraft noise impacts.
The MSP International master plan study also determined that recent trends
in aviation technologq and airport operational procedures can greatly improve
the environmental capability of the facility...In this regard, the Metroplitan
Airports Commission in cooperation with the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abate-
ment Committee,- has initiated numerous noise - abatement. strategies at MSP that
have made the airport operations more compatible with its surroundings. These
�'• noise - abatement efforts have included:
1. Preferential runway system
2. Restriction of training flights
3. Noise abatement landing andstakeoff procedures
4. Improved visual and.instrument landing aids
5. Mendota Heights land-use-compatibility effort
6. "Keep -em- high" approach procedure
7. Ground noise attenuation programs
8. Pilot awareness and sensitivity program
9. Night flight curfew
In response to the initial success of these efforts, the Metropolitan Airports
Commission is in the process of establishing a comprehensive Noise Abatement
Operations Plan based upon the recent trends in .control of aircraft noise by
federal research and regulatory action. Consequently, it appears that the
MSP International Airport can be environmentally responsive under increased
service at this facility.
AI RPQRTS
... A 1I1:/77 51
As noted in the discussion of system alternatives, another key-to extending the
long -term operational capability of MSP International as the Area's major
airport is the provision of adequate facilities elsewhere to-.accommodate the
future demand in general aviation. Due to services available and metropolitan
centrality of MSP International, the pressure to accommodate general aviation
aircraft is-anticipated to remain high, thereby necessitating one or more pro-
cedures for encouraging general aviation aircraft to utilize airports speci-
fically designed to handle them. Among the principal ways to encourage metro-
politan dispersal of general aviation aircraft at MSP International are:
1) to provide safe, efficient and accessible reliever airports, 2) to establish
a landing fee program that reflects the premium nature of landing general
aviation aircraft at the Area's sole scheduled commercial airport, 3) to
provide storage and tie -down space for a limited number of general aviation
aircraft at the airport, and 4) to institute a landing reservation program.
AIRPORTS
.. � A/11/77 53
3
PART V: SYSTEM PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The Metropolitan Airports System Plan is to provide direction for federal/
state /met.ropolitan agencies and local units of government involved in or
affected by planning and developing of aviation facilities. Implementation
of the Airports System Plan involves (1) estimating the costs to complete
the system, '(2) identifying sources of required planning /development funds,
-(3) establishing general priorities for the system plan elements and (4)
.providing guidelines for plan implementation.
`System Costs /Funding
The System Plan, if fully carried out, would consist of one major airport
Minneapolis -St. Paul International; two intermediate airport facilities -
Anoka County, St. Paul- DOwntown; six minor system airports - Flying Cloud,
Crystal, Lake Elmo, South St. Paul and the new minor airports in Hennepin
and Dakota Counties; and one special use-facility - a private - public use
seaplane base at Rice Lake. In addition, the system includes the continued
operation of the following four privately owned public use minor airports:
Gateway North, Forest Lake, Northport and Airlake Industrial.
t
The System Plan provides for improvements at existing publicly owned airports
as needs warrant. The specific improvements expected are identified in each
airport's master plan. Such improvements might include land reservation
for clear zone protection, aircraft noise abatement measures, or landing.and
ground facility development. Additionally, the acquisition and eventual
development of two new general aviation airports will be necessary. The
cost to develop the total system to its maximum capability would be approxi-
mately $260 million dollars. The cost to develop the total system to 1990
is estimated at $107•million dollars. The planning /development costs by system
plan elements between 1977 and 1990 are shown in Figure 29.
Upon adoption of the System Plan, it will become necessary for the governmental
units and agencies involved to effectively utilize all sources of financial
and technical assistance available for the timely execution of the plan.
,�tiCVfS iJ t
54/A/-11:/77
y
r
i
Figure 29: COST ESTIMATES FOR PLANNING /DEVELOPMENT( ) OF METROPOLITAN
t
AIRPORT SYSTEM ELEMENTS, 1978 -1990
(1977 dollars in millions)
i
1978 -1990
Minneapolis - St. Paul Intl $ 81.5 million
St. Paul Downtown
Anoka County
Flying, Cloud
Lake Elmo
Crystal
So. St. Paul
9.7
4.2
1.7
2.9
.6
3.3
New Airports
Search Area 'W' 2.0 (site acquisition)
Search Area "B" 1.5 (site acquisition)
$107.4 million
* Includes 2.3 million dollars for specific planning elements such as environ-
mental impact statements, master plan updates and off- airport land use
planning and new airport site selection. Except for the new airport si *_es,
the listed figures represent the cost of planning and developing each•
airport through 1990 without additional land acquisition. -
r .
- AIRPORTS. .
A/11777 SS
Funding for the planning /development of the Systeip Plan is to be shared by
federal /state agencies and local units of government. The estimated - shares
of system plan funding between 1978 and 1990 are $51.7 million federal, $9.0
million state, and $46.0 million local. The anticipated $46.0 million local
share of system funding will be supported by user fees. With respect to maintaining
the privately -owned airport facilities within the system,_no public financial
assistance is expected.
Timing and Priorities
A set of general priorities, based upon short (1978 -1983) and intermediate -
term (1983 -1990) needs are as follows:
1978 - 1983
Minneapolis -St. Paul Int'1
St. Paul Downtown
Flying Cloud
Crystal _
Search Area "A" (site selection)
Search Area "B" (site selection)
1983 - 1990
Minneapolis -St. Paul Intl
Anoka County
Lake Elmo
South St. Paul Municipal
Search -Area "A" (site preservation)
Search Area "B" (site preservation)
The priorities are shown graphically in Figure 30. Of central importance to
the Metropolitan Airports System is the continuing improvement of the operational
capability and environmental compatibility of MSP International through 1990.
By 1980, site selection of the two minor general aviation airports should
be accomplished and provisions for their protection be made. Also during
the five -year time period, continuing improvements should be made at St. Paul
Downtown, Flying Cloud and Crystal Airports. Between 1983 and 1990, in addi-
tion to continuing improvements at.MSP, emphasis should be placed at South
St. Paul Municipal, Anoka and Lake Elmo Airports.
f It is important to emphasize that the identified system elements priority
"groupings" for the 1978 -1983 and 1983 -1990 time periods reflect the projected
str.ibution of aviation demand in the area durinla those_ time periods (FI- pur.es
W.
i
AIRPORTS
56/ A '1-3/7 7 '
i
4t
1978-1983
0 1983-1c...'90
1973 -1990
1978 - 198fF Site Selection CRN,
1931 - 1990: Site Preservation
1978 - 1980 Site Selection
1981 - 1990: Site Preservation
s s to t3 o n
FIGURE 30. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN PRIORITIES
AIRPORTS
A/1"1777
26, 27, 28). The precise nature of the detailed planning and /or improvements
required at each of the priority elements should be determined in terms of
accommodating the demand in an orderly and timely manner as social, economic
and environmental constraints permit. Improvements and related detailed
planning required at a particular site might be for environmental protection,
expanded terminal facilities, improved ground access, expanded parking, addi-
tional hangar space,•runway extensions or other improvements. I -t is not
the function of the Airport System. Plan to identify the specific manner in
which to accommodate the demand.
Implementation Guidelines
The effective implementation of the Airports System Plan will involve close
coordination among the Federal Aviation Administration, Minnesota Department
of Transportation (Aeronautics Division), Metropolitan•Council, Metropolitan
Airports Commission and local governmental units. The roles and responsi-
bilities of.the various levels of government involved in the implementation
of the Airports System Plan are noted in Figure 31.
(Selection and Preservation of Identified New Minor Airport Site)
I
Critical to the proper functioning of the Airports System Plan••is the rapid
identification and preservation of a new general aviation airport site in
each of the two search areas delineated in the Airports System Plan map.
Preparatory to site selection, the Metropolitan Council shall establish appro-
priate site selection criteria. These criteria will relate to factors such
as the locating of new airports in rural use areas and their relationship
to agricultural land, freestanding communities and other metropolitan systems
such as parks and open space.
Due to the large size of the search areas and the many local governmental
units involved, it is impracticable to request a•moratorium on general de-
velopment within the search areas until the airport site selections have been
made. Rather, the local units of government should assist the Metropolitan
Airports Commission in the selection of the appropriate airport sites. Upon
selection of each site, the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning
Ai hruh i z)
•
o
co 10
u
oO $4
ni
ro
a
C M
ti4
a
•r1 �
1J
M
�
'
O
M
u
u
v
0.
M
Cdd
tiOi u
to
44
3�+
a U
"4 r-1
M O
u
41
M
"4
41
O
G CL
a)
u
+{
V
)d
k
•
cs
.-1 ri
o
a.
G M
a.
o
o
°" a
r+
w
•
c
• �
• a
a
a-H
H
k 3
0
,+
R
1d
CU
.-t
V)
4-1-1 O
O
O
O
> N
O
41
•
a �.,
F -1
CS ).1
E
N
N
M JJ
a
Ji
.O
O O
4-C
O
c
N
to
C)) 0
r4
t1 3
v
1J
r 1
•.4
o
H
x M
o
`vim
r1 u
$4 d
a
to
a.
►-+
u M W
O.
a
LOU
o o
>
E
sa
z
u 0 14
o
cC 4.1
F•1
" 4
a
"4
O
a •r+ to
to
H
O
G:
k u c
b
'CS
td
E c
L
-
U
'�
O
•r1 cS W
c
a
00 p
a)
• z
G M
C,
cd U r-i
u
cd
v
y
-
O
CS N
P
r! P.
c
O
H
4-1
M
O
a
1.4
U4-4
u
U
v
z
r4) 10 M
41 Li
p •.4 E
E
4J
u U ,-t
U C:
a x
as U v
v
r
a)
r iJ G
U v
z
•r1 a
z
n, c 4,1
1-4
p
ra
z
a, CS `4
t1 E
`i
<
E-1
>
of
d
u. O M
'J
G
W
P.
t>;
aJ r-1 E
'0
o u
O
D�
H
u >„
P. r+ to
t 1
Q.
0
E
H
W
l4 c)
P.
i4 r-1
o
H
0
w
H
0-
.00
0
0
0
0
'a
o 0
0
W
a
H
z
z
„
�
a
d
0
•
a
41
O. tJ
y)
C6
u
4J
5
41
,q
>>4
N
to
t
o
.14
V)
4J
c d
a
0
a.
o
0�'0
to
of
134 43
li
41
p
4J
Cv'
r••1 0
a
a
a
cd
a
pp�,
u
aEi
a.
bO
14
w
A
41
.°
-A
4J
zp
>
o
u
•v 44
o
p
.-O.1
41)
0
$4
H
V
a
,"4
•14
•ats
o
a.
H
ra.
Q
i
14
cd
a
a
O
u
H
cO
H
to
•t7
1J
6
v
>
11
w
►-7
O H
b
•r4
G
a
C:
-A
a
O
p
z
M "4
0
O
>
cd
eo
10
cd
M
>
a.
O
G N
cC
P.
to
O
G
E
O
a
N
O
d
11
to
M
•r1
a)
cd
p
O
b
•rt
w'
H
C
«f C:
r-t •r1
ri
4-4
z
O
•r•t C.,
O
a•1
O
O
>
a4
O
G) to
O
4.4
=
a
'O
Cd
_ `
P:
E c
CL
u
N
N
E a
cl1 ro
4J r4
c
c
N
N
O
11 r•1
cd ra.
3.1
N
$4
n.
0
N
G)
>
xt'ji
to
b C:
O
G PW
co
M
M
a1
Q
O.
E
O
►:
t'+ k 1
p
ii+
•rd
r4
41
11
O
GO
p
z
O
ad O
a.
)a
p
U
b N
E
u
c
1Zc
4�t E
ro
o
aaC
.
4
•v
.
aw
'
a
o )
ai
rd
co
'C7 'CS
z
b u
c
).1
k
H E
0 >_
M
td
c
t!1
Ed ri
cc
ctl 11
p
W
•r+
cd
•r1
tC
U O
U
u M
>%
N
U
O
a
14
b
G
W
►-a
''
a
a
0
4-4
n o
W
a
a
O a
a u
N
N
o ro
.r
0 a
>
M
u
tJ N
o k
o
3
3
3
�,.)
P.
.-•1 M
O
c
)+
cc) a)
r-t O
4.1
a)
a
a
d
f•1 N
y,,
W
O c
N
N
O
z - 0.10
(D C%
-A
•r4
:.a
•r1
H
ta, a)
p
> Cl
CL
U
44
a) •.4
> p
0
>
>
>
.�
CL C6
CJ w
Ca.
44
c
H $a :1
a) •r1
O
(1)
'a)
Q!
r-•1
d
6 O
U
C� N
• 4
a
W
a 0
A cu
P:
P;
ce1
.H�
�a?
O
O
W
O O
O
7
O
O
O
O
0 O
O
O
O
O
O
WP.
to
C�I
z
H
H
W
AIRPORTS
Act and Metropolitan Significance Regulations shall apply to the affected
jurisdictions. It is imperative that site selection be accomplished-by 1980
in order that local comprehensive planning can respond to specific locations
and allow for appropriate development in the vicinities of each site as required
by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.'
(Proposals for Additional Airports to System)
In cases where metropolitan counties or freestanding municipalities desire
airport facilities not identified in the System Plan, the following procedure.
should be followed:
o Local unit of government prepares an airport feasibility study.
o Feasibility study request transmitted to FAA, Mn /DOT, Metropolitan
Council and MAC for review /funding.
o Local unit of government requests Metropolitan Council to amend System
Plan and designate an airport search area if feasibility study justifies
an airport master plan study.
o Metropolitan Council holds public hearing and amends its Guide chapter.
o Local unit of government performs site selection study.
o Local unit of government then requests Metropolitan Council to amend
s
a Guide hapter to include the selected airport .,site.
o Metropolitan Council holds public hearing and amends its Guide chapter.
(State /Metropolitan Svstem Interface)
The possible future development of additional general aviation airports'to
serve freestanding municipalities located near the boundary of•the seven-
county Metropolitan Area will necessitate coordination with the state aviation
system plan concerning planning and development programs at the airports
located outside of but near or adjacent to -the Area. The locations of these
non - metropolitan system airports are shown in Figure 32.
AIRPORTS
60 /A 77
Rush
City
Cambridge
+lg �
SHERBURUNE ISANTI CHISAGO POLK
Osceola
Buffalo \\ ^ \ \\
New Richmond
WRIGHT
ST. CROIX
\ t( 3
Turban SCr lice Area
Winstead 0
McLEOD PIERCE
Glencoe
\ \ Rural Service Area
•. \ \ ��,� Red Wing
SIBLEY
Le Sueur
RICE
GOODHUE
LE SUEUR
Fairbault
FIG ME 32. L MOMS OF AlUOR.`i'S PU.IPMR L TO METF,OPOLITAI1 k
AiYti'Vti 1J
.. morel
-- All-1-177
FOOTNOTES
1. Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Development Guide,
Airports Chapter, September, 1973, pp. 22,
2. Northwest Orient Airlines 1977 Estimate.
3. Estimate is based on data from several CAB and FAA sources
as contained in the report: FORECASTING MODELS FOR AIR FREIGHT
DEMAND AND PROJECTION OF CARGO ACTIVITY AT U.S. AIR HUBS,
January 1977, FAA - AVP - 77 -2.
4. Metropolitan Council estimate.
5. Data prepared by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the
Air Transport Association in 1971 indicated that visitors to
the Twin Citie's Area spent over $184 million. If one assumes
a 7 percent inflation rate, this would likely be about 40 per-
cent higher in 1976 or $260 million.
6. Fortune, May, 1977
A/11'/77
APPENDICES
A. GLOSSARY
-B, AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREAS
C. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPICAL
MINOR GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT
D. MINOR AIRPORT SEARCH AREAS
l/ H L I J V I/\ A
64/A/11'/77
A. GLOSSARY
AIR CARRIER: Scheduled certificated airline aircraft operations
that provide commercial passenger and cargo services.
AIR OPERATION: Either a landing or takeoff movement.
AIRSPACE: Space in the air above the surface of the earth,
or a particular portion of sudh space, usually
defined by the boundaries of an area on the
surface, projected upward.
AIRPORT The number of aircraft movements which the runways
CAPACITY: of an airport can process. within a specified period
of time with the average delay to aircraft kept to
An acceptable limit.
AIRPORT The Land uses and people in the area.surrounding
ENVIRONS: an airport which can be directly affected by the
operation of the airport. `<
AIRPORT iIASTER A document which presents (in conjunction with an
PLAN :. airport layout plan), the ultimate configuration
and development of a specific airport in both
graphic and written form. This document is
normally the result of one or two years of study
accomplished either through the local government
sponsor_ or private developer. in the case of
publicly owned airports the funding of such studies
comes primarily from the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration, with the State and the local sponsor
contributing a proportionate share in the cost of
the study.
AIRPORTS SYSTEM A plan, regional in scope, that identifies the
PLAN: functional roles of all existing and proposed
aviation facilities through time.' A system plan
includes a policy package and a generalized
development program. Detailed development studies
of individual system elements are part of the
Airport Master Planning process.
BASED AIRCRAFT: Aircraft which are stored, hangared, or tied
down at one particular airport, and use this
airport at their primary base of operations.
A111:177
6.5
CLEAR ZONE: An area beyond the end of a runway, under -
control of the airport operation, in which
the presence- of'-structures or other obstructions are
controlled to permit a minimumlangle of flight for
takeoff and landing operations.
COMMERCIAL AIR
Same as Major Airport.
CARRIER AIRPORT:
-CORPORATE AIR -
Term to describe the aircraft used for the
and
CRAFT:
transportation of corporate executives
Often related to turbo-
general corporate needs.
aircraft and turbofan /jet aircraft.
prop
CROSSWIND
Runways constructed to allow an'airport to be
is blowing perpendicular to
RUNWAYS:
used when the wind
the "main" runway. Usually the main runway -is
oriented in the direction from which the wind
is built
most commonly blows. A crosswind runway
in the next most common wind direction at the
airport site.
"FLOOR
Altitude at which positive air traffic control in
ELEVATION" OF
a Terminal Control Area begins. Aircraft can
below floor elevation without being
TCA:
operation
under Terminal Control Area restrictions. (See
definition of Terminal Control Area).
GENERAL All aviation activity other than that of the
AVIATION (QA): scheduled air carriers and the military. In this
study, general aviation includes single and twin
engine aircraft that have gross weights ranging
from 2000 to 6000 pounds.
GENERAL All aviation activity other than that of the
AVIATION scheduled air carriers and the military.
HUB TERMINAL: The air transportation facility which is the focus
of an airport system, usually providing air carrier,
air cargo, and general aviation activities,
INSTRUMENT A landing approach to.a runway, usually under bad
APPROACH: weather conditions, wherein the approach to an
airport's runway is flown primarily by reference
to instruments to a prescribed "decision height."
4 At this height the pilot makes positive visual
reference to the airport, or its approach lights,
or terminates the approach'and begins climbing
I- k to a hi her altitude (missed approach).
ac g ,
Al RPORTS
66 /A /I1"/77 APPENDIX A
Y�
INSTRUMENT FLIGHT Rules as prescribed by Federal Air Regulations
RULES (IFR): for flying by instruments. Often used when
weather conditions, visibility or ceiling,
fall below those prescribed for Visual Flight
• Rules. kircraft -cannot operate. IFR if weather
conditions are worse than the prescribed minimums.
INSTRUMENT LANDING A nonvi.sual, precision approach to a runway
SYSTEM (ILS): uti.,lizing electronic equipment on the airport
to provide lateral guidance to the runway
centerline and to give positive vertical
reference to the glide path to the runway end.
INTERMEDIATE An airport whose primary geographic /service
AIRPORT: focus is national, state and metropolitan in
scope. The primary users are corporations.
LOCAL FLIGHT Refers to.those activities by aircraft which:
OPERATIONS:
1, Operate in the local traffic pattern or
within sight of the airport;
2. Execute simulated instrument approaches
or low passes at the airport (i.e.,
touch- and- go's);
3. Arrive from or depart to a local practice
area located within a 20 -mile radius of the
airport, (Most instructional /training
.operations are local).
MAJOR AIRPORT: An airport whose primary geographic /service
focus is international, national and state in
scope. The primary users are the commercial
air carriers (scheduled and supplemental).
METROPOLITAN AIR- All the air transportation facilities (air
PORTS SYSTEM: carrier, general aviation, and military)
within the Metropolitan Area.
MINOR AIRPORT: An airport whose primary geographic /service
focus is state and metropolitan in scope.
Personal, business-and instructional uses are
accommodated at these facilities..
APPENDIX '�.
A
A .11 7 7
67
NOISE EXPOSURE A measure of the impact of aircraft noise on
FORECAST (NEF): people, based on the frequency and.intensity.
of the noise over'a 24 -hour period.
NOISE ABATEMENT: The attempt to reduce the amount and level of
noise on and around airports, especially
during takeoffs and.landings, partly through
special operational restrictions and proper
land use planning for areas affected by
aircraft noise.
PRACTICAL ANNUAL
The theoretical number of aircraft operations
AIRPORT CAPACITY
that*can be handled by an airport in a year
(PANC4P):
This measurement depends upon runway layout
(number, type, direction), instrument landing
capability of the airport, average weather
conditions, the presence of an air traffic
control tower, etc.
PRIVATELY OWNED,
These airports are privately owned, but avail -
No acquisition
PUBLIC =USE AIRPORTS:
able for public use. public
of these facilities is envisioned.- Their
continued existence and degree of'development
will depend on the owner, land use /development
pressures, the proximity of public owned air -
ports and applicable aeronautic /airport
statutes or regulations. As a minimum, the
owners of these facilities are urged to
'
maintain these airports, to the maximum
extent.feasible, in accordance with federal
and state standards.
RELIEVER AIRPORT:
An airport whose primary purpose is to serve
general aviation and, at the same time, relieve
congestion at a major airport having a high
density of scheduled certificated airline
traffic. It performs this function by
and diverting general aviation
_attracting
activity away from the major airport.
RUNWAY:
Any landing -and takeoff strip of an airport.
SPECIAL PURPOSE
A heliport or seaplane base whose primary
/service focus is normally state
AVIATION FACILITY:
geographic
and metropolitan in scope. Personal, business,
military instructional uses are accommodated
at these facilities. Gliders have been
accommodate at private airports in the -
Metropolitan Area.
AIRPORTS
. APPENDIX = =..
68/4/11'/77 —
TERMINAL CONTROL
AREA (TCA) :
VISUAL FLIGHT
RULES (VHF) :
VERY HIGH FREQUENCY
OMNIDIRECTIONAL
RADIO RANGE (VOR) :
VOR APPROACH:
The aircraft traffic control area surrounding
a major air carrier airport in which -all
aircraft are under radar control. -
"See and be seen" flight rules. Used
during good weather-conditions under which
an aircraft can be operated by visual
reference to the ground and to other
aircraft.
A ground radio station that provides a pilot
of a properly equipped aircraft with his
location in reference to that station._
Better known as "Omni."
A landing approach to a runway using the
VOR as a reference point and - directional
guidance to the runway.
c
'A/ l:r/ 7 7 �s
69
B. AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREAS
This appendix describes the relationship between aircraft operations and noise
and compatible and incompatible land uses. A land use influence area map of
each publicly owned airport in the metropolitan system is included. The 1977
land use, the 1976 and 1990 noise contours, and structural /physiographic con-
straints are delineated in these maps.
As discussed in PART II of this chapter, the Metropolitan Airports System is
comprised of three basic components; i.e., Landside, Airside and Land /Air Inter-
face. Each of these three components represents distinct operational functions.
at or in the vicinity of an airport. The land use configurations surrounding an
airport should relate to the aircraft operations of each of these components.
Land use, in response to aircraft operations, principally reflects: the types of
activities and structures that present a hazard to aircraft operations or are
adversely affected by aircraft noise. Land uses considered potential safety
hazards to air operations are those that cause electronic interference for
airport and aircraft communication', impair visibility, create glare, obstruct
aircraft movements or that distract and confuse aircraft pilots such as certain
ground lighting arrangements.
Land uses adversely affected by the various levels of noise generated fror... air-
craft operations have been identified by several federal and state agencies. For
the purpose of describing existing and future noise impacts to land uses surround-
ing the system's publicly owned airports, 1.976 and 1990 noise contours developed
from these methodologies have been delineated in the vicinites of these facilities.
The "Lio of 65 "noise .contours have been delineated for the MSP International
Airport and the 30 NEF noise contours have been delineated for the general
aviation airports for 1976 and 1990. The noise contours for the system's
publicly owned airports were jointly developed by staffs of the Metropolitan
a
701A/11777-
Council, the Metropolitan Airports - Commission, the�Minnesota Department of
Transportation. and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency." I
These contours appear on the,following airport influence area maps in relation
used as a guide in planning future land use
to existing Land use and are to be
within the airport influence areas. The" L of 65 "and 30 NEF noise contours
10
identified in the following figure represent "transition zones" "and not precise
lines between the theoretical acceptable and non- acceptable not -se levels for
residential and other types of development such as schools,- hospitals, libraries,etc.
LAND USE CONPATISILITY GUIDELINES FOR AIRCRAFT NOISE ENVIRONMENTS*
Land Use Interpretation
Land Use Category
Auditoriums, concert hails, music shells
Residential: Single Family, duplex, mobile homes
Residential: Multiple Family, dormitories, etc.
School classrooms, libraries, churches
Hospitals, nursing homes
Sports arenas, outdoor spectator sports
Playgrounds, neighborhood parks
Transient Loding
Golf courses,.riding stables, water rec., cemetaries
Mfg., communications (noise sensitive)
Office bldgs., personal, business & professional
Commercial: retail, movie theaters, restaurants
Livestock farming, animal breeding
Extensive natural recreation areas
Commercial: whl'se, some retail, ind., mfg., utilities
Agric. (except livestock),mining,.fishing
*After Wilsey and Ham.
L.0 of 65
and will be available for review
** These noise contours are presently bein
developed '
g
prior to the scheduled public� hearings)
Fe
APPCNDI" E3
k/1.777-
71
As regards the zoning.of land about public airports relating to airspace, safety
and noise sensitivity, the affected local units of government should adopt appro-
priate zoning.that reflects land use compatibility as exemplified in the illustration
on page 70.
The attached airport influence area maps on the following pages are to be used
for general reference purposes only. Additional data relating to airspace zones,
land use safety zones and noise - sensitivity zones for each publicly owned airport
in the Metropolitan Area are t"o be provided in the Metropolitan Council's system
statements relative to th.e Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
A PORT CLAsStriCATION
MAJOR
titTMMEDIATE
MINOR
� ANE
CRY
ELtA
i srrr
fGNi MS's
• i1�1
Airport Influence Areas
Airport influence areas, as defined in Part II of this chapter, involve
varying distances from the geographic centers of the facilities. These
distances are 2 miles for Minor airports, 4 miles for Intermediate airports,`
and 6 miles for Major. airports. The following figure shows the relationship
of the influence areas surrounding stem's publicly ok
the Sy
airports to
the 'Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary.
U RPO RTS
APPENDIX
72/ A/1-1777
77
i
a
t
S
MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
1977 LAND USE ,
CALE p �; 1 ? 3 4
MILES
Please" see notes foiiowing
Re: Land Use and Noise Contouz
AIRPORTS
APPENDIX B
A/11177
' 73
MINNEAPOLIS - SAINT PALTL INTERNATI0NAL AIRPORT
(WOLD- CF,'I' E ice' IN FIELD)
PHYSICAJ, CHA 4CTERT_STT_CS OF AIRPORT
Airport Property: 3000 Acres
Runways (Concrete)
N'eT -SE 200' x 10,000'
_ hii -SE 150' x 8200'
NE -SW 150' x 8250'
Landing Aids
Control Tower (FAA)
ASR.
TLS (Runways 4 and 29L) (29R to be installed)
ti.LS (Runways 4 and 29L)
Glide Slone Units and Marker Beacons ( Runways 11R and 22)
High Intensity runway edge lights on a.l runways
REIL (Runways 22, 11R and 29R)
VASI (Run-•;ays 11L and 29R)
RVR and RBC
PAR
Beacon
DM
SERVICE FACILITIES AVAILABLE
Eight Commercial Airlines - 'Northwest, .North Central,
Braniff, United, Eastern,
Western, Ozark and A1le;heny
Main Base for Tw? Coc�.ercial Airlines - Northwest and
North Central
Service Hangars - Western airlines, Braniff Aingays, and
United Air Lines
Four Co=,uter Airlines: Mississippi Valley, Air Wisconsin,
Mesaba Aviation, New Ulm Flight Service
Commercial Operators for General aviation: Two
1977 LAND USE CO,;FIGURATION
(1968 Land use presently being updated by 'Metropolitan Council)
.1976 /1990 L 1 of CONTOURS
(Approximate L10 of 65 Contours are presently being prepare
jointly by tie staffs of the Metropolitan Council, MO DOT,
MPCA and MAC. These contours, to be depicted in relationship
to the 1977 land -use configuration within this airport ir.-
fluence area, will be available for the final drafting of
this MDG Chapter) .
JRPORTS y APPENDIX B-_: --
A1x77
ST. PAUL DOWNTOWN AIRPORT INPLUENC:t AKtA
1977 LAND USE
fS
Please see notes following
Re Land Use and Noise
Contours
N
s SCALE Q 1 2 3 .4
MILES
r
75
SAINT PAUL DOIAMTOWN AISPOP.T
PHYSICAL CF_�kRAC -RISTICS OF AIRPORT
Airport Propart,: 540 Acres
Runways (Bit ^ir.ous)
W,-SE 150' x 5400'
E -W 100' x 3850'
N -S 1000' x 4500'
Landing aids
Control Tower (FAA) Lights (R «�- 8-26)
Medium Incensitv Runway
High Intensity Runway Lights (1,y 1.2 -30)
VASI (\,v -SF. °.:r/)
Localizer Gr6-SL R',rj)
MIL (N4 -SE Rc.y)
Interim %!icro::a•.e Landing Syste^� (i ?at R(R 30
t. - aar:cer Compass Locator (',r� 30)
Outer �far..e. - H • ;;, .
Beacon and Li =`tad ;nd Cone
FAA Approved (70R) ?nst= xe:t Approach Procedure
s�RVICr FACIL'TZrs AVAILA-zLE
Cor=ercial Operators for General Aviation: Two
Oz the jiinnesoca Depart =anc of Aeronautics
Offices o:
Air national Guard Hangar
Other Facilities:
Full Service Aircraft 2tai:icerance
Admiristraticn Buii _din3 Offices of :Minnesota ighway Patrol
SRy'cef Rastaurant Aero Space Aviation Supply Co.
Seaplane Dock Sanbron aviation
Rental Cars
1977 LA \'D USE ronFIGUZATIO`:
(1968 Land use presently being updated by "Setropolican Council)
1976/1990 30 .�aF CO2iTOCRS
(Approximate 30 NFF Contours are presently being prepared
Jointly by the staffs of the MetrepoLitan Council,
`fn /OOT `�C
and :LAC. These concours,co `�e deoicted in relationship to
the 1977 land -use cunfigura *_ion �rithin this airport in-
fluence area,will be available for the final drafting or
this MDG Chapter).
! RPORTS h
APPENDIX = r
�� A -l.l• 77
ANOKA COUNTY AIRPORT INFLUENGE AKtH
1977 LAND USE
I
t -
t
t
t
S
t
s -
.Please see notes followin;
Re Land Use and -Noise
Contours
N
SCALE 0 1 2 3 4
MILES -
A/11777 �µ
77
ANOI�4 COUNTY AIR ?ORT
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Or AI ?, ORT
Airport Pronert7: 1900 Acres
Runwa7s (Bit-uminous)
N -S Runway 100' x 4855'
E -W Runway 75' x 3200'
Landinz Aids
Control Tower: 'lone
Mediums Intensity Lights - N -S Runway and E -W Runway
Lighted Wind Core
Lighted Wind Tee
Approved Instr:-.Tent Approach Procedures
Beacon
Control Tower ([leekend operation)
• UNICOM - 122.8
SERVICE FACILITIES AVAILI..SLE
Co =ercial Operators fcr Ceneral Aviation.: Six
1077 LAND USE CO`iFIGU3AT_IO`l
(1968 Land use presently being updated by Yetropolitan Council)
1976/1990 30 !EF CONTOURS
(Approximate 30 NEF Contours are presently being prepared
Jointly by --he staffs of the Metropolitan Council, `4niDOT,`roCA
and MC. These con.tours,to be depicted in relationship to
the 1977 land -use configureation within this airport in-
fluence area, will be available for the final drafting of
this MDG Chapter).
J RPORTS
F APPENDIX B h-5 :.L
781 A
FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
1977 LAND USE
N
SCALE Q
MILES
G 1/2 1 2 3
FLYING CLOUD AIR ?ORT -
PHYSICAL CILAkRAC%RiSTICS Or A1?201ZT
Airport Property; 340 Acres
Rurways (Bituminous)
E -W No, 1 75' x 3600'
E -W No, 2 75' x 3215
N -S 75' x 2710
LandinQ,Aids
1 .
1
1
i
PL
RE LAND USE and
NOISE CONTOURS,
I,y.
`
�aY
N
Control Tower: (F A_A)
Medium tMcensity Lights - N -S Runway and E -'.7 Runway tip. 1'
TVOR
Approved Instr=er.t Approach Procedure
Beacon
Lighted Wind Cone
REIL - Runway 9L
ATIS
VASI (To be installed - all runways)
SERVICE FACILITIES AVAI!,kBLE
Commercial Operators for General Aviation: Nine
1977 LAND USE CONFIGURATION
(1968 Land use presently being updated by metropolitan Council)
1976/1990 30 NZF COZrIOURS
(Approximate 30 2-cF Contours are presently being prepared
jointly by the sca ;fs of the Metropolitan Council, Mn /DOT,
,IPCA and ?LAC. T ese contours, to be depicted in relationship
to the 1977 lard -use configuration within this airport in-
fluence area, will be available for the final draiting of
this MDG Chapter).
AIRPORTS ,� P P E N D I\ B
j..
A/11!/77
'7�
LAKE ELMO AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
1977 LAND USE
N
SCALE
MILES
0 1/2 1 2 3
i=-11i .
i
1 �
i
\` PLEASE ' SEE NOTES BEL0W �
` RE .LAND 1JSE and NOISE CONTOURS
/f
LAKE E12M AIR:0?t7,
PHYSICAL C^ ?_kCTERISTICS OF AI ?PORT
S
Airport P_ooerty: 640 Acres "
Runways (3i*- =inous)
I
D -SE Runway 75' x 2600'
.E -SW Runway 75' x 2500'
Landinb Aids
Control Tower (Ncne)
Medium Intensity Lights - NO -SE Runway
Beacon
Lighted Wird Tee
Lighted Vir_d Core
Approved Instr=ent Approach Procedure
uAcom - 122.8
SERVICE FACILITIES AVAILABLE
Co=ercial Operators for General Aviation: Two
1977 LAND USE CONFIGLMAT_TON
(1968 Land use presently being updated by Metropolitan Council)
1976/1990 30 NEF CONTOURS
(Approximate 30 \EC Contours are presently being prepared
iointly by the scarfs of the Mecro?olitan Council, M.11DOT,
,MFCA and .L\C. These concour.s,ce be' depicted in relacicrship
to the 1977 lard -use confi- uration :within this airaort in-
fluence area, will be available for the final drafting of
this MG Chapter).
APPENDIX L3
sol A 1117 7
CRYSTAL AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
1977 LAND USE
N
SCALE
MILES
0 1/2 i 2 3
CRYSTAL AIRPORT
PHYSIC4` C'r_A2?CTERISTICS OF AIRPORT
Airport Provercv: 433 Acres
Runways (Bitu-minous)
NE -SW 75' x 2500'
NW -SE 75' x 3250'
\V-SE 75' x 3250'
1
1 1
1
t j
PLEASE SEE NOTES BELOW
RE LAND.,USE and NOISE CONTOURS !�
ice/
One Landing Strip 2500' x 200' (,;E -SW)
Landing Aids
Control lower: None
Medium Intensity Lights - (Runways 31R -13L and 23R -5L)
Control Tower (FAA)
Approved Indstrument Approach Procedure
Beacon
Lighted Wind Cone
ATIS
VASI - Rwy. -13L (to be installed)
SERVICE FACILITIES AVAILABLE
Commercial Operators for General Aviation: Seven
1977 LAND USE C0NvTGL'RAT10N
(1968 Land use presently being updated by Metropolitan Council)
1976/1990 30 ;EF CONTOURS
(A roxi:.ate 30 \EF Contours are presently being prepared
jointly by the staffs of the Metropolitan Council, ::n /DOT,
: TCA and kkC. These contours, to be depicted in raiationship
to the 1977 land -use configuration witain this airport in-
fluence area, will be available for the final drafting of
this }MG Chapter) .
r►rrrr vrr �., s �:
APPENDIX
i 81
SOUTH ST. PAUL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
1977 LAND USE
N
SCALE Z�
MILES'.
Q 1/2 1 2 3
SOUTH ST. PAUL %LtU\IC'_PP.L AIRPORT
PH`iSICAL C:: A_RAC ER:S T ICS OF AI9DOR'C
Airport Property: 246 Acres
Runway - (Bituminous)
,TL,-,d - SSE 100' 1 4000'
Landin &Aids
Control mower: :tone
Medium Intensity Run-..ay Lights
Approach Control: Ninneaoolis
Radar: Yes
FSS - Minneapolis
UNICOM - 123.05
SERVICE FACILITIES AVAILABLE
i
1
PLEASE SEE NOTES BELOW
RE LAND USE and NOISE COW
Co=ercial Ooerators for General Aviation:
Number of Aircraft Hangers: 9
1911 LAND USE C0NFIG1jRA -,ICN,
(1968 Land use presently being updated by Metropolitan Council)
1976/1990 30 NEF CONTOURS
(Approximate 30 NEF Contcurs are presently being prepared
jointly by the staffs of the Metropolitan .Council, A!n /D0T,'1TCA
and K.%C. these contours,to be depicted in relationship Co
the 1977 land -use confizuration within this airport in-
fluence area,will be a-,ailable for the final dra: =ing of
this ,`iDG Chaptar).
t
1
1
i
f
1
I.
AI RPO R ► S
. APPENDIX ` ='
R9 /A/11/77 ` t
C. PHYSICAL. CHARACTERISTICS OF ATYPICAL MINOR GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT
The diagram on the following page shows a typical layout of runways,-taxiways
and areas for air traffic control tower, aircraft storage (both hangar and tie -
down space), and automobile parking. Also the theoretical land use safety zones
A, B, C as discussed in Part III of this chapter are depicted. Typical physical
characteristics are given below for both the 1990 -2000 and post -2000 development
phases.
1990 -2000 Development Phase
- Capacity: 250 -300 based CA aircraft
Two paved and lighted runways 2,500 -3,000 feet in length
One "primary" runway (likely northwest /southeast orientation)
One "crosswind "runway (likely northeast /southwest orientation)
Air traffic control: visual (VFR) -
- On- ground storage (both hangar and tie -down) to accommodate 250 -300
aircraft
- Probable total airport site acreage: 500 -700 acres
Post-2000 Development Phase
Capacity: 500 -600 based CA aircraft
Two parallel paved and lighted "primary" runways.. The new parallel "primary"
runway would be 3;000 -4,000 feet in length.
Air traffic control: instrument (IFR)
- On- ground storage (both hangar and Cie -down) to accommodate 500 -600
CA aircraft
- Probable total airport acreage: 500 -700 acres
` ?OBIS
APPENDIX
A Ir 77
. 33
do
�1 4
y
Ell 0
3
1
y
y `
caw
9j
oti
F
V
eN, Y
A� B
SCALE 0 1000 2000 4000 6000
FEET~. -�"
TYPICAL MINOR GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT LAYOUT
APPENDIX--D. :-
84/A/11'/77
GENERAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING
AIRPORT SEARCH AREAS "A" & "B"
Airport Search Area "A ", located in northwestern Hennepin County, involves
the following local governmental units:
Greenfield
Independence
Corcoran
Medina
Maple Grove
Plymouth
Orono
Hassan Township
Airport Search Area "B ", located in southcentral Dakota County, involves the
following local governmental units:
Lakeville
Farmington
Rosemount
Castle Rock Township
Empire Township
Eureka Township
Between 1978 and 1980,. the Metropolitan Airports Commission with the coopera-
tion of the local governmental units listed above should initiate an airport
site selection study in both identified search areas for the purpose of locating
the best possible site for a Minor General Aviation Airport as characteristically
depicted in- Appendix C.
To assist the.Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Metropolitan Council shall
prepare.appropriate site selection criteria that reflect the social, economic
and environmental objectives inherent in the Metropolitan Development Frame-
work and consistent with Aviation Policies 3, 4, b, 7 and 8.
The above identified local units of government do not need to take action
regarding the planning for these proposed two new minor airports until the
Metropolitan Airports Commission has identified one specific site in each
designated search area. Specific airport site designations should be accom-
plished by 1980 after which the affected local governmental units must provide
measures to protect properties surrounding these two airport sites from in-
compatible land uses.
AIRPORTS
�ml
77
APPENDIX
D. MINOR AIRPORT SEARCH AREAS
85
Minor Airport Search Area.
11 A it
-
APPENDIX D
136%A/11/77 ,
Minor Airport Search Area
a�
P
S
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 358
Agenda November 28, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Authorization to Enter Into an Agreement to Conduct
Lime Sludge Disposal Study
On March 14, 1977 the city council directed the city manager to contact
Hennepin County and other communities within the county to see if they might
be interested in a joint study of the lime sludge disposal problems being ex-
perienced by several governmental agencies.
Since that time there have been a series of meetings on this subject and
efforts have resulted in commitments from the county and the cities of Bloom-
ington and Eden Prairie. An agreement has been negotiated with Pfeifer and
Schultz /HDR, Inc. to conduct a study to consider alternative methods of
dealing with the lime sludge generated by the water treatment plant process.
The contract with Pfeifer and Schultz /HDR, Inc. of which a copy is
attached, provides that the total cost the study will not exceed $63, 103.
Hennepin County will pay for one half of the study with the additional costs to
be shared among the cities of Bloomington, Richfield and Eden Prairie. The
Richfield share will not exceed $8, 000.
It is financially advantageous to the city to participate in this joint study
since it would be necessary for us to conduct the same kind of study on an
individual basis if the other governments were not interested in participation.
We have previously discussed the very substantial increases in costs of lime
sludge removal that have occurred since the plant was initially constructed.
However, perhaps even more significant is the fact that no bids were received
when we requested lime sludge removal bids several weeks ago.
Council Letter No. 358 -2- November 28, 1977
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director in which I concur,
that the city council approve the attached agreement and authorize execution
of the contract documents by the Mayor and the City Manager .
Respectfully submitted,
iV� . S . /3 luv;
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /eja
cc: Public Works Director
Finance Director
1 ,
r
7 .
,r +.
T �
k
n
0
'E
Agreement. No. PW 46 -66 -77
Pfeifer and Shultz /HDR, Inc.
City of Bloomington
City of Eden Prairie
City of Richfield
County of Hennepin
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, male and entered into this day of _ __, 19_
by and betr•teen the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the
laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County ", the
Cities of Bloomington, Eder. Prairie, and Richfield, bodies politic and cor-
porate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as
the "Cities" and Pfeifer and Shultz /HDR, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Con-
sulting Engineers, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant ".
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the County and the Cities for some time have been planning to
provide for Water Treatment Plant Ultimate Lime Sludge Disposal Feasibility,
and
WiTREAS, it has been determined by the parties that an engineering study
be made rf the water treatment process and lime chemical precipitate disposal
methods for the Cities' Municipal Water Treatment P.iants in order to determine
the most efficient acid economical means of lime sludge disposal, and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the County and the Cities have a
specific interest in the stated study, and
WHEREAS, the County and the Cities will benefit from the results of the
study and all are filling to share proportionally in the cost of the prepara`4.on
and co!cpletion of the study, and
WHEREAS, it is the e1pressed interest of the County and the Cities to
participate and cooperate in the preparation and completion of the said studies
and in furtherance of such interest, the Cities have formed the Lime Sludge
Disposal Study Steering Committee, consisting of one representative of each of
the Cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Richfield, Hinneapolis, and Hennepin
County, and
WHEREAS. the Cep ?nty and the Cities are authorized by Minnesota: Statute
471.59 to enter into agveemeuts providing for the exercise of powers shared in
common. and
WHEREAS, the County, und,r• the provis iors of Minnesota Statute 473.121 ,
473.803 and 473.811 is mandated to provide for the disposal of solid waste
which iiac sludge has ken claysified by legislative actinn, and
,
1
a
i.
WHEREAS, the Consultant has submitted a proposal to perform engineering
work covering the preparation of an engineering study, and
WHEREAS, the County and the Cities desire the Consultant to prepare an
engineering study for the Water Treatment Plant Ultimate Lime Sludge Disposal
Feasibility:
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED:
I. GENERA_
A. TERiiINATIONS
This Agreement may be terminated by the County and the Cities for any
reason whatsoever, at any time upon written notice to the Consultant,
In the event that such termination should take place at any time other
than at the completion of the work to be performed, the County will pay
the Consultant for the services performed under this Agreement. Pay-
ment will be determined in accordance with the work performed to date of
termination, by task series, as recorded by labor costs of personnel en-
gaged in the services. Said payment, for each task series, shall not
exceed the amount listed undei, IV. Payment to Consultant and Hennepin
County herein for completion of all work required by this Agreem;cnt.
The original copies of all drawings, prints, plans, and reports prepared
by the Consultant prior to said termination shall become the property of
the County and the Cities. Such termination shall not affect any legal
right of the County and the Cities against the Consultant for any breach
of this Agreement.
B. REGISTERED Pit 11.—I 1014AL ENGINEER
The Consultant hereby agrees to assign a Registered Professional Engineer
employed by the Consultant and licensed to practice in the State of
Minnesota who will act as the single contact with the Steering Committee.
Said Engineer shall be liaison and shall be responsible for the conduct
of the Consultant's preparation of the study report prepared under this
Agreement. The final report prepared and submitted in accordance with
Principal Task 800 shall be signed by a Registered Professional Engineer,
Registered in Minnesota. The Consultant shall furnish resumes and other
information as necessary to permit a proper review of the qualifications
of the Registered Professional Engineer, the Project Manager and the
Environmental Engineer assigned to work on this study,
- 2 -
i
t
c
``N
�i
0
Ift
C. CLAIMS, IN.VYNJTY Ai1b TNiI!RAPlC_i.
1. Claims
The Consultant indemnifies, saves, and holds harmless and agrees to
defend the County and the Cities and their officers, agents or em-
ployees thereof, from any and all claims, demands, actions On causes
of action of whatsoever nature or character arising out of or by
reason of the execution or performance of the r:ork of the Consultant
provided for undc_r this Agreement.
2. Independent Contractor
For the purposcs of this Agreemrent, tle Consultant shall be deemed
to be an independent contractor and not an employee of the County or
the Cities. Any and all employees of the Consultant or other persons
while engaged in the performance of eny work or services required by
the Consultant under this Agreement shall not be considered employees
of the County or the Cities and any and all claims that may or might
arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or Unemployment Compensation
Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees or other
persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by arty third
party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the
Consultant's employees or other persons while so engaged on any of the
work or services to be'rendered shall in no way be the obligation or
responsibility of the County or the Cities. The Consultant shall pay,
as they become due, all just claims for work, tools, machinery, skills,
materials, insurance premiums, equipment and supplies furnished, ren-
dered or performed in the execution of this Agre,r.ment.
D. COiiP,___ IdTTH LAWS
The Con s ultant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws to-
gether-with all ordinances and regulations applicable to the work. He
shall procure all licenses, permits, or other rights necessary for the
fulfillment of his obligations under this Agreement.
- 3 -
• l
Y,
r
In accordance with the County's Affirmative Action Policy and the County
Corilssion^r's policies against discrimination, no person shall, on the
grounds of race, color, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,
sexual orientation, public assistance status, ex- offender status, or
National Origin, be excluded from full employment rights in, participa-
tion -in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrim-
ination under any program, service or activity under the provisions of.
any and all applicable federal and state laws against discrimination.
The Consultant will furnish all information and reports required by
Hennepin County or by Executive Order No. 11246 and revised Order No. 4,
and by the rules and regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor for
purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regu-
lations and orders.
E. CONTINGENT FEE
The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company
or person, other than a bonafidc employee worsting solely for the Consul -
tant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he has not paid or
agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working
solely for the Consultant, any fees, commission, percentage, brokerage
fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from
the malting of this Agreement.
For breach or violation of this warranty, the County or the Cities shall
have the right to annul this contract without liability, or in its dis-
cretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise
.recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage
fee, gift or contingent fee.
F. SUBLETTING
The services of the Consultant to be performed hereunder are personal
and shall not be assigned, sublet or transferred unless written authority
to do so is granted by the County and the Cities,
- 4 -
.11
r
.
G. SUCCESSORS_AfdD ASSTG ^!.S
�. ?•
The County, the Cities, and the Consultant each binds himself, his part-
ners, successors, executors, administrators and assigns to the other party
of this Agreement and to the partners, successors, executors, administra-
tors and assigns of such other party, in respect to all covenants of this
Agreement; except as above, the Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or
transfer his interest in this Agreement without the written consent of
the County and the Cities. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating
r'
any personal liability on the part of any officer or agent of any public
_.
body which may be a party hereto.
H. INSPECTION
Duly authorized representatives of the County and the Cities shall have
' the right to inspect the work of the Consultant whenaver they deem it
necessary,
I. WORK DIRECTION
The Steering Committee shall meet with the Consultant's liaison man and
review the Consultant's work at specific intervals.
'
There shall be a minimum of five meetings and the meeting interval shall
not be more than ninety (90) days apart. The Steering Committee after
reviewing the Consultant's work, may order the Consultant to pursue or
redirect his workload in rertain task series areas within the scope of
this Contract.
II, SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. SERVICES BY CONSULTANT
1. Make a detailed study of the City of Bloomington's 41ater treatment
facilities, a ger,wral review study of the City of Richfield's water
treatment facilities, and a minimal investigative study of the City
of Eden Prairie's water treatment facilities for a process evaluation
for optimum methods, to minimize production of waste materials with. -
out impairing the finished tinter quality.
2. Make all necessary studies, computations and investigations and Pro -
vide a written report for, "Wager Treatment Plant Ultimate Lime Sludge
Disposal Feasibility Study ", as described in Exhibit "A" Principal
Task Series, Lime Sludge Disposal Study, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Said Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and by this reference made a part
hereof.
.11
3. Be completely responsible for the adequacy and propriety of all phases
of that portion of the study sunder the Consultants direction. The
Consultant warrents that his findings, recommendations, a. nd profes-
'r
,
sional advice will be per•forr;ed in accordance with generally accepted
y {
4�..
professional engineering practices.
4. The scope of services for this project consists of the principal
study Clem• ^nts, which said study elements are described in depth in
e
said Exhibit "A ". The compensation for the services shall be the
amount set forth after each task series -in IV. Payment to Consultant.
B. SERVICES BY THE COUNTY NID THE CITIES
The County and the Cities slr.11:
1: Make availab'1e to the Consultant all pertinent records and documents
pertaining to this study which would assist the Consultant in the
assembly of data necessary for the preparation of the report.
2. Examine all 91 iminary studies, reports, sketches, drawings, and
other doctmtents presented by the Consultant and render decisions per-
taining thereto.
3. Designate persons to act as representatives with respect to the work
to be perfor;ed under this Agreement. Such persons shall have com-
plete authority to transmit instructions, receive infoimation, inter-
pret and define policies and decisions with respect to materials,
equipment, elements and systems pertinent to the work covered by this
Agreement.
4. Give prompt written notice to the Consultant whenever the County and
the Cities observe or otherwise become aware of any error, omission
or need for modification in the study.
III. TIME SCHEDULE
A. FINAL REPORT
Work shall begin with Task Series 100 upon execution of this Agreement.
All work included in this Agreement shall be cor;pleted on or b:fore
September 30, 1973,
B. TIML EXTI- NSIONS
Tile County and the Cities may extend the aforesaid time completion period
upon written request from the Consultant because of delays encountered
that are beyond his control. The extent: of this time extension shall be
determined by tile. County and the Cities.
_6 -
E H. PAYM7.NT TO COL ;(At,T A14D THE_COUttTY
t . . A. PAYFtEt,T CFiEUL
DE �----------NSU
All direct payment to the Consultant shall be made by the County.
F ' ti ip:�tion costs Will be reimbursed to the County as
The Cities par _
ti yea hereinafter provided.
2, The Consultant may submit monthly st.aterrrnts and shall be reimbursed
for direct Labor costs plus 1505 of labor costs in accordance with the
t 0. man -hours of v;ork; completed in Sct-ied.ale No. 1 of Exhibit "A ". The
t direct labor ci;ar;es shall be as follows
1.
Policy Manager $23,00 per hour
• ` Project Manager $18.00 per hour
11 17
Environmental Engineer $12.50 per hour
Draftom;:tn and Clerical 0800 per hour
In addition to the direct labor charges, the Consultant will be reim-
bursed for the actual costs of reimbursable expenses as provided in
Exhibit "8".
The County shall make partial payments to the Consultant computed on
the bas.., of the total wort: completed in accordance with Schedule
P1o, 1 of exhibit "A ", less all previous payrients, arid less ter, percent:
(10 %) of the whole which will be retained by the County as a protec-
tion of its interests until the true value of the work has been
determined.
3. Final payment to the Consultant will be made within sixty (60) days
after all conditions of this Agreement have been satisfied.
4. It is understood and agreed that the Consultant shall not exceed the
estimated man -hours for the task series, as shown on Schedule No. 1
in Exhibit "A ", without prior approval by the County and the Cities.
5. The maximum compensation for this Contract is $63,103 and this surr
shall not be exceeded under this contract.
6. The Cities will reimburse the County for their respective shares in
the cost of this study in accordance with the schedule shown in
Exhibit "C" herein.
- 7 -
r
K *c
r�
�z.
1
a
The Cities total payments will be made in two installments, Install-
ment one consisting of ninety percent (90 %) of each Cities respective
share in the total cost of the project based on the estimated cost
of $53,502 shall be due and payable when fifty percent (50) of the
Consultant's work has been completed.
7. Final payment by the Cities shall be made after all the conditions of
this Agreement cave been met. Payment shall be due within sixty (60)
days after submittal of an itemized bill by the County.
8. The following is an estimated cost for accounting purposes only for
the services to be performed by the Consultant.
TASK SEPHS BASIC STUDY FLFLiG NTS AN0 TIME SCHEDULE COMPENSATI0
100 Plan of Study $ 1,430
200 Review Discharge Restrictions 250
300 Data Collection 3,592
400 Bloomington Plant Evaluation 16,630
500 Richfield Plant Evaluation 6,250
600 Ecien Prairie Plant Evaluation 1,940
700 Sludge Disposal Analysis 8,320
800 Report 91590
Sub -Total $ 48,002
20% allo::zble contingencies v.h n ordered by the Lime Sludge
Disposal Study Steering Committee mentioned on page 1 herein $ 91601
Non - payroll Expenses, see Exhibit "B" (travel, subsistence,
.printing, and miscellaneous) 5,500
Total Maximum Compensation $ 63,103
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year
i.
first above written,
?r
PFEIFER AND SHULTZ /HDR, INC.
Seal: By:_ - - --
.r'
Title
Date • _
!
fM.
STATE: CF —_ -- — )
Z
COUNTY OF )
On this _ day of 19_____, before me appeared
to me personally known,
who tieing by me duly sworn did say that he /she is the
of
the corporation described in and who executed the foregoing instri!!uent; that
the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said
corporation; and that said instrument was executed in behalf of said corporation
by authority of its Board of Directors; and said
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of safd corporation.
Notary Public
Y
My commission
ATTEST: CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
By:
Mayor
(Seal) Date:_
—__
And:
Manager
Date : ^ - -- - --
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By : - --
Mayor
(Seal) Date•
Manager
4 +
+•
ATTEST:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Mayor —
r +.
(Seal)
' s y �
Date • _ ._,—
�
And:—
11 r
,
Date:_ --
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
�.
6y
--
C �aira;n of its County 1,oara
Date : ---------
_ �
Deputy County Ruditor - --
,
RECOMENDED FOR APPROVAL
Date:
Upon prci;er execution, this agree.-
De )V, County Rdannistrt,�er
ment will he legally valid and
binding .nci upon date of approval
Date:
is in ccmpliance wri h all laws
relating to the subject matter
hereto.
Dy' - - - -- -- - -.. -.—
By: ^_ _
-- -
Associate Courrcy Adra�n�s;rator
-� — - -��
Assistt.nt Cou,,.ty Attorney
and County Engineer
Date:
Cate:
`—
Approved as to execution
Di rector, Department a- Er, i ron-�1ent
By: ` - -_
and Energy
•
Assistant County F +ttor++�:y
Date: -.__ �— - -- - --
Date: _ _
E
EXHIBIT "A"
PRINCIPAL TASK SERIES -- LIFE SLUDGE DISPOSAL STUDY
HENNEPIN COUNTY, M1tdNES01 -A
r
SERIES 100 --
PLAN OF STUDY
r Y
100.10
Meet with the Steering Committee to review and confirm
study goals,
t.
100.20
Develop.detailed plan of study based on study scope and
rte
-
*;
results of discussions from Task 100.10.
t'
100.30
Review plan of study with the Steering Committee. Revise
as necessary.
1.
100,40
hake task assignments to members of study team and proceed
with study,
SERIES 200 -=
REVIE'W DISCHARGE RESTRICTIONS
2bO.10
Review existing and proposed legislation, local, state and
federal, regarding discharge of liquid wastes from water plants.
200.20
Revie;r existing and proposed legislation, local, state and
federal, regarding landfill. restrictions of water plant waste
i
products.
200.30
Determine most probable acceptable limitations on water plant
waste handling procedures,
SERIFS 300 --
DATA COLLECTION FOR ALL WATER PLANTS
300.10
Secure plans and specifications for all three water treatment
facilities,
300.20
Obtain water plant production records and water analysis for
raw and finished water,
300,30
Review all previous tried treatment methods,
300.40
Obtain, review and revise as required, all previous water plant
output projections, Coordinate with plant capacities and
future planned expansions,
300,50
Using data obtained in Series 200 and 300, determine a basis
for design from which to base economic analyses.
300,60
Determine quantities and chemical characteristics of sludge
to be dewatered,
SERIFS 400 -
BLOOMINGTON PLANT EVALUATION
400.10
Conduct bench scale laboratory tests to maximize treatment
efficiency. Tests will be geared to accomplish the following:
�9 -.
6
V
E
4 ,
• Y
1, Minimize che;nical costs,
2, Maximize filter runs.
3, Minimize sludge production,
41. Maximize vacuum filter loading. rates,
Process evaluation will include investigation of the follow- -
ing alternatives in order to achieve optimum operation.
1, The use of clarification aids such as;
a, Aluminumm suifate
b, Sodium a.luminate
c. Various polymers
d. Activated silica
e. Others or combinations of the above as deemed
desirable by the Consultant and the Cities
2. Split Treatment
3. Sludge recycling
4, Clarifier settling tubes or plates
5, Mixing raw and finished water
6, Selective softening
7. Reduced softening
400.20 Where favorable results are indicated by bench scale studies,
full scale plant studies maybe conducted,
400,30 Employing data obtained in Tasks 400,10 and 400.20; recom-
mend most efficient treatment technique,
400,40 Briefly review other mechanical dewatering techniques,
Discuss economic comparisons with existing vacuual filters
for the following potential dewatering methods.
1, Sp•i roacter-
?_, Centrifuge
3. Pressure filter
400,50 Review in -plant sludge handling procedures for production
of the most acceptable form of sludge and minimal quantity.
Care-full; •review the following means of improving the effi-
ciency of the existing equipment,
1. Clarifier sludge removal and pumping equipment
2, Coagulation and sedimentation with and without
coagulant aids
3. Chemical addition to raw sludge
a, Polymers
b. Lime
4. Carbonation of raw sludge
5. Optimize efficiency of vacuum filter operation
- 10 -
�t
t
}
t
i.
e
1
n jl n
a. Condition of raw sludge best suited for filtering
Q Percent submergence of drum
c, Rotation speed for various sludge quantity conditions
d. Belt selection
e, level control,
f. Possible application of a demooning bar and belt
alignment apparatus
400,60
Carefully analyze design of existing thickener to assure maxi-
mum efficiency is achieved,
1, Sludge removal mechanism
2, Overflow weir design
3. Inlet design
4, Operation techniques
400.70
Employing information 0tained in Tasks =:00.0 through 400.60,
make recommendations as to most efficient means of sludge
dewatering,
SERIES 500 ---RICHFIELD
PLR "iT EQUATIQN
500,10
Review earlier polymer and centrifuge dmaterkg test results. ,
500,20
Study treatment plant process to determine optimum treatment
methods for reduction of sludge volume.
500.;0
Determine best method for handling water plant sludge, in-
vestigate alternative methods to existing pun;ping operation.
500,40
Study present lagoon dewatering capability to deterrnine any
improvements that may optimize its operation,
50000
Study alternative methods of dwater•ing sludge for short and
long range disposal, Discuss economic comparisons with ex-
isting lagoons for the following potential dewatering methods.
1, Spiroacter
2, Centrifuge
3. Pressure Filter
SERIES 600 --
L:DEN PRATRTE PLANT EII LUATION
600110
Study present lagoon dev,,atering capability to determine any
improvements that may optimize its operation.
600.20
Study alternative methods of dewatering sludge for short and
long range disposal. Discuss economic comparisons with
existing lagoons for the following potential dewatering
methods:
1. Spiroacter
2, Centrifuge
3, Pressure Filter
n jl n
L
k
. r
,
r,
►r
SERIES 700
- SLUDGE DIS-PO Lkt ANNLYSES
700,10
Analyzc existing and future landfill disposal operations for
all three water plants,
1. Using data furnished by Hennepin County showing all
possible landfill sites and their respective capacity
for disposal, develop alternative plans for short
(5 -8 years) and long -range landfill disposal of water
plant sludge,
.2, Study alternatives and determine best method of hauling
sludge to landfill.
3, Determine.cost comparisons for sludge disposal plans
for various alternative dewatering methods.
41 Determine most cost effective and acceptable method of
dewatering, hauling, and landfill disposal of water
plant sludge,
700120
Review other markets for water plant sludge, Consideration
will be given to the following concepts:
1, Discharge to sewage plant, Determine general effect of
sludge on sewage plant operation, including costs
associated with discharge to sewer,
2, Use for neutralization of industrial acid wastes.
31 Determine what type of industry might use this product
and if a market exists in this area,
4. Employment as neutralizing source for future metro-
politan hazardous waste landfill.
5, Marketing potential for agricultural use in land appli-
cation as soil conditioner,
6, Make general economic comparison for other uses as
applicable,
700,30
Determine the feasibility of recalcining at this time or at
some future date, Incorporate recalcination into water plant
waste disposal plan if applicable, Review study by Minneapolis
Water Works regarding recalcination and apply entire County
sludge production to long -range outlook.
SERIES 800 --
REPORT
800.10
Bring together all information and materials (maps, charts,
tables, schematics and descriptive material) gathLred and
developed during the study and organize into a draft report.
Include all elements discussed A n the Principle Task Series.
800.20
Review draft report: Present draft report to the Steering
Committee for review and comment.
800,30
Revise draft report as required and develop final report,
Provide fifty (50) copies of report: to the Steering Committee.
- 12 -
u '
`i
4
li
SCHEDULE #1
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
LIME SLUDGE DISPOSAL STUDY
MAN -HOUR ESTIMATE
. � A
�t5
0
Policy Manager
Project
Environmental
Drafting
'
TASK SERIES
Technical Advisor
Manager
Engineer
Clerical
3
100 Plan of Study
-
300.20
_
3
3
100.10
-
4
12
24
tk `,
100.20
4
4
4
6
,*
'
100.30
-
2
-
2
-
100.40
-
2
-
-
t'
TOTAL MAN HOURS
4
12
16
8
200 Review Discharge Restrictions
200.10 - - 2 -
200.20 - - 2 -
200.30 - - 4 -
TOTAL MAN HOURS
0
0
8
0
". 300 Data Collection
-
-
16
-
300.10
-
3
3
-
300.20
-
3
3
-
300.30
-
3
24
-
300.40
-
3.
12
-
300.50
3
20
24
300.60
-
-
16
-
TOTAL MAN HOURS
0
15
78
24
400 Bloomington Plant Evaluation
0
8
48
4
400.10
-
8
100
-
400.20
-
8
80
-
400.30
-
-
16
-
400.40
-
-
8
-
400.50
-
8
160
-
400.60
-
4
60
-
400.70
8
8
16
40
TOTAL MAN HOURS
8
36
440
40
bUU Kichtiele Plant evaluation
500.10
-
-
16
-
500.20
500.30
-
8
48
24
16
500.40
24
500.50
4
4
48
8
TOTAL MAN HOURS
4
12
160
_
24
600 Eden Prairie Plant Evaluation
600.10
-
4
16
-
600.20
-
4
32
4
TOTAL MAN HOURS
0
8
48
4
700 Sludge Disposal Analysis
700.10
4
8
11i0
40
700.2.0
-
2
24
-
700.30
4
8
56
-
TOTAL MAN HOURS
8
18
200
40
800 Report
_
800.10
-
-
120
100
800.20
4
16
24
-
800.30
4
8
24
40
TOTAL MAN HOURS
8
24
168
140
GRAND TOTALS
32
125
1,118
280
i,
�C h.
z_
z
N W
W .{
z L9 G
O W
� O =
>- cn
z F-
z (--
O -W U
U uw
a < O
W (Y
z�a
z
W W
i W
N
a
i
t
i,
�C h.
z_
z
N W
W .{
z L9 G
O W
� O =
>- cn
z F-
z (--
O -W U
U uw
a < O
W (Y
z�a
z
W W
i W
N
a
i
0
r
N
Y
v
r1
oN
}
Q
O
W
N
F-
0
to
ID
y
0
FIGURE I
cn
w
O
J}
CL w
Z
O
a
z
�
O
�
Q
a
J
a!
O1
W
CL
tni
o I.
z
z
O
J
wf
d
�
C
O
J
C{
-i
V)
Ow
a
O
00i
Q{
I
a
.
a
J
z
a
J
z
q
z
a
W
n.
w
o
°O
P
Z
w
_U
� a tL
� d z
U
z
Z
o
CD
O
O
O
U
z 1
,°n
?-
U
N
O
O
O
D
0
U
m..
U
Qt
u
O
>
O {
O
Ct
w
z w o�
J
O
'
to L
d
O
E
O
O
0
r
N
Y
v
r1
oN
}
Q
O
W
N
F-
0
to
ID
y
0
FIGURE I
i.
)t.
r1 K
\
,
EXHIBIT "B"
REIt;i�URSFB!_E EXi t:fiSi':S
Reimbursable non - payroll expenses shall be limited to the following direct
expenses:
1, Travelling expenses of the Consultant's employees when away from the home
office.en activities connected with the work, ipcluding air fare (coach
only), auto rental, subsistence not to exceed $36.00 per diem for trips
requiring overnight accommodation, mileage at fifteen cents ($.15) per.
mile when either Consultant or Consultant employee automobiles are used.
Travel other than between the Consultant's offices and the Steering
Coii�mittee's jurisdiction requires prior County approval.
2. Identifiable communication expenses, such as long-distance telephone,
telegraph, cable, express charges and postage other than for general
correspondence,
3. IdAntifi a.ble drafting and stenogfaphic supplies directly chargeable to
the work,
n. Identifiable reproduction costs applicable to the work, such as blue-
printing, photostating, m0cographing and printing.
5.' Miscellaneous services directly applicable to the work., such as computer
rental and programming costs,-special consultants, laboratory charges,
connercial printing and binding, and similar costs that are not applicable
to general o` eyhead,
-13-•
k
i.
)t.
r1 K
\
,
EXHIBIT "B"
REIt;i�URSFB!_E EXi t:fiSi':S
Reimbursable non - payroll expenses shall be limited to the following direct
expenses:
1, Travelling expenses of the Consultant's employees when away from the home
office.en activities connected with the work, ipcluding air fare (coach
only), auto rental, subsistence not to exceed $36.00 per diem for trips
requiring overnight accommodation, mileage at fifteen cents ($.15) per.
mile when either Consultant or Consultant employee automobiles are used.
Travel other than between the Consultant's offices and the Steering
Coii�mittee's jurisdiction requires prior County approval.
2. Identifiable communication expenses, such as long-distance telephone,
telegraph, cable, express charges and postage other than for general
correspondence,
3. IdAntifi a.ble drafting and stenogfaphic supplies directly chargeable to
the work,
n. Identifiable reproduction costs applicable to the work, such as blue-
printing, photostating, m0cographing and printing.
5.' Miscellaneous services directly applicable to the work., such as computer
rental and programming costs,-special consultants, laboratory charges,
connercial printing and binding, and similar costs that are not applicable
to general o` eyhead,
-13-•
i
1
EXHIBIT "C"
PERCENTAGE OF COSTS BY THE COUiaY AND THE CITIES
TASK: NU.',iBER
HENNEPIN COUNTY
BLOOMINGTON
RICHFIELD
EDEN PRAIRIE
100
50%
33.5%
12.5%
4%
200
50%
33,5%
1215%
4%
300
50%
33.5%
1215%
4%
400
50%
50%
-
500
50%
-
50%
600
50%
-
504,
700
50%
33.5%
12.5%
4%
600
50%
33.5%
12,5%
4%
n 14
13
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 357
Agenda November 28, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Change Order for Extension of Time on Contract for
Pump and Piping Well No. 7, City Project 695
Lee Richert Plumbing & Heating Company has requested a time extension
for completion of the pump and piping for Well No. 7, City Project No. 695.
Lee Richert- Plumbing & Heating Company has been experiencing difficulties
in obtaining some of the equipment for this project and one item is not scheduled
for shipment until February 1.8, 1978.
Because the completion date for this project was November 15, 1978, it is
recommended that a 120 day extension period be granted to permit final install-
ation of equipment of the pump and piping for Well No. 7.
WSB /eja
cc: Public Works Director
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 356
Agenda November 2.8, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Second Reading, Hub /Penny /Summit Superblock PUD Rezoning
The second reading of the rezoning ordinance to change the zoning of
the Hub /Penny /Summit area had been scheduled for the November 28, 1977
city council meeting. However,'. since the joint parking agreement has not
been finalized between the property owners in the proposed Superblock, it
is recommended that the council reschedule second reading of the proposed
rezoning for the December 12, 1977 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /eja
cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director
_,
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 355
Agenda November 28, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Renewal of Interceptor Sewer Maintenance Agreement
with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
This agenda item provides for renewal of an agreement with the Metropol-
itan Waste Control Commission to reimburse the City of Richfield for mainten-
ance costs on interceptor sewers owned by the commission.
The interceptor sewers throughout the City of Richfield are the property
of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. However, the most efficient
and economical means of insuring proper maintenance of the sewers is for the
city to provide the maintenance and be reimbursed by the Waste Control Comm-
ission. All communities within the seven county area served by the Waste
Control Commission use this same arrangement.
The attached Statement of Agreement Renewal provides for a one year
extension of our existing agreement under the same general terms and conditions,
except that the estimated 1978 reimbursement, to be paid in twelve monthly
installments, is $2,100, compared with a 1977 reimbursement of $2,000. The
basic agreement provides that all city costs will be reimbursed and that if the
estimated !reimbursement is not adequate, an additional adjustment is made on
an annual basis. The actual cost in 1976, reimbursed under the terms of this
agreement, was $1,298. The actual cost for 1977 through October is $763,91.
This agreement has been reviewed by the city staff and it is recommended
that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute the agreement on
behalf of the city.
cc: Public Works Director
Finance Director
Respectfully submit t ,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT RENEWAL
INTERCEPTOR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT NO. 131
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the City of Richfield
agree to renew the Interceptor Maintenance Agreement No. 131 which is
currently inforce between these parties. The terms of the Agreement
for the renewal period shall be the same as those contained in the Agree-
ment which was executed for the January 1, 1977 — December 31, 1977 period
with the exception of Section 6.02:
"Section 6.02 Cost Estimates; Payments." The parties estimate that
the total amount of costs which the Commission will be required to pay
to the Municipality for performance of this Agreement in 1978 will be
$2,100. Such amount shall be paid in twelve monthly installments
as an advance payment of such costs. On or before February 1, 1979, the
Municipality will submit to the Commission a detailed statement of the
actual costs incurred by the Municipality which the board is required
to pay in accordance with Section 6.01, and will remit to the Commission
any amount paid to the Municipality which is in excess-of such actual
costs. If the total of the monthly advances paid by the board is less
than the acutal amount of such costs, the Commission shall pay to the
Municipality on or before March 1, 1979 an amount equal to the difference
between the actual costs and the monthly advances previously paid.
The Municipality shall keep detailed records supporting all costs of
the types specified in Section 6.01 which it expects the Commission to
pay, and shall make the same available to the Commission on request.
The renewal period for Interceptor Maintenance Agreement No. 131 shall be
January 1, 1978 - December 31, 1978. That both parties agree to the renewal
period and terms is evidenced by the signatures affixed to this statement.
FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR THE METROPOLITAN WASTE C014TROL COMMISSION
(Title) h D. S rauss, Chairman
Title
Dated Dated // /O — 77
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Discussion of Pornographic Material
/A
Council Letter No. 354
Agenda November 28, 1977_
Councilman Ludeman has asked that there be an item on the November 28
city council agenda for the purpose of discussing display of pornographic
material in various business establishments.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /jkl
cc: City Attorney
Public Safety Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000
Council Letter No. 353
Agenda November 28, 19 77
Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council
must approve purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction
when the amount exceeds $1,000. There is one such item on the city council
agenda of November 28, 1977.
Newsletter Postage
City staff is preparing a quarterly newsletter to be distributed in early
December to all Richfield residents. This newsletter will also include the
winter schedule for park and recreation department activities. A revision of
postal rates which became effective in December, 1975 increased the cost of
the quarterly newsletter mailing to an excess of $1,000. Therefore, it is necess-
ary that the city council approve a. purchase in excess of $1 , 000 for postal costs
of this mailing in the amount of $1,247. Funds are available in the 1977 budget
for this expenditure.
Respectfully submitted ,
96�� S . 1�'
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 352
Agenda November 28, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Discussion of Garbage and Refuse Collection Ordinance
Councilman Ludeman' has requested that there by an item on the November 28
city council agenda to discuss provisions of the refuse and garbage collection
ordinance.
A copy of the ordinance provisions is attached. The last major revision of
these provisions occurred in 1970 following a staff report, city council study and
a formal public hearing..
Respectfully submit d,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB %jkl
cc: Environmental Health Director
Subd. 13. Insurance Requirements. No license shall be issued unless and until
the applicant first files with the clerk a policy or policies of insurance insuring
such applicant and the city against loss for each licensed vehicle in the sum of at
Least $100,000 against liability imposed on account of damage to or destruction of
property by reason of the ownership or operation of any.such vehicle. Any such
policy shall provide that it may not be cancelled by the insurer except upon notice
to the city. In case of cancellation of such insurance, such license shall be sus-
pended automatically until such insurance has been replaced.
Subd. 14. Dumping of Contents. Dumping of the contents of any such vehicle in the
city sanitary sewer system shall be limited to contents removed from installations
within this city unless the council, by resolution, permits such dumping from other
designated municipalities. No such dumping shall be permitted except at manholes
designated by the director of public works and specially equipped for such dumping,
and only if the person doing such dumping has obtained a permit as hereinbefore
required. Emergency dumping by licensed scavengers may be made at such authorized
manholes on weekends and holidays when city offices are not open, but in such event
the person doing such dumping shall obtain a permit on or before noon of the next
following secular day. Such dumping shall be done only on week days, Monday through
Friday, between the hours of 08:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m, and on Saturdays, Sundays and
holidays during said hours only in emergency cases. Vehicles used for dumping into
the city sanitary sewer system shall be equipped with a gate valve and hose to con -
trol the flow of contents into such sewer.
Subd. 15. Revocation. Violation of any of the provisions of this section shall
result in automatic revocation of licenses.
6.06. AIR POLLUTION AND GARBAGE. AND REFUSE HAULING REGULATIONS.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance the following terms,
phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not
inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future,
words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular
number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely
directory.
(1) "Garbage" shall mean animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling,
preparation, cooking, service and consumption of food and shall also include all
other animal wastes.
(2) "Refuse" as used herein shall include all wastes which normally result from
the operation of a household, except body wastes and garbage, including but not
limited to rubbish, tin cans, paper, cardboard, glass jars,:sbottles, Brood, grass
clippings, Christmas trees, ashes, sod, dirt, tires, rocks, household construction
material, cement, bricks, trees, leaves, hedge or tree trimmings, burning barrels
and mesh backyard burners, household appliances and furniture or any other household
refuse or material small enough for one man to handle. The term refuse shall not
include construction material or other waste or debris resulting from construction or
reconstruction of buildings and other improvements by contractors, or trees in excess
of six (6) inches in diameter.
(3) "Commercial Establishment" shall mean any premises where a commercial or in-
dustrial enterprise of any kind is carried on, and shall include clubs, churches,
and establishments of nonprofit organizations.where food is prepared or served or
goods are sold.
(4) "Incinerator" shall mean any device used for the destruction of refuse, rub-
bish, or waste materials by fire.
(5) "Licensed Private Garbage and Refuse Collector" shall mean any person holding
a valid license from the city for the collection of garbage and refuse.
1un1• 5 -25 -70
(6) "Residential ayelling Unit" shall mean any single building consisting of
three or less separate dwelling places with individual kitchen facilities for
each. It also includes any boarding house in a residential district.
Subdivision 2. Disposal of Garbage and Refuse. Every tenant, lessee, owner, or
occupant of every private dwelling, house, multiple residence, store, motel,
restaurant, and every other type of property in the city which accumulates garbage
or refuse or:.both on such premises shall dispose of such garbage and refuse as
provided in this subdivision. Garbage and refuse shall'.be disposed of at least
once each week from residential dwelling unit properties. Garbage and refuse in
outside storage at any commercial establishment shall be disposed of at least once
each week and as often as once each business day if necessary to protect the pub-
lic health. No person shall accumulate or permit to accumulate any refuse on any
property in the city which might constitute a nuisance by reason of appearance,
odor, sanitation, possible littering of neighboring properties, littering of the
property on which the refuse is accumulated, or a fire hazard.
Subdivision 3. Collection, Supervision and Control. The City Manager, or his
designated representative, shall have the authority to make regulations concerning
the days of collection, type and location of waste containers, and such other
matters pertaining to the collection, conveyance, and disposal as he shall find
necessary, and to change and modify the same, in accordance with the provisions of
this section. Any person aggrieved by a regulation of the City Manager shall have
the right of appeal to the City Council which shall have the authority to confirm,
modify, or revoke any such regulation.
Subdivision 4. Precollection Practices. Grass clippings, .leaves and other similar
refuse shall be placed in bags or bundles not exceeding three (3) feet in any dimen-
sion and securely fastened to avoid spillage. Household appliances, furniture,
Christmas trees, burning barrels and mesh backyard burners falling within the defin-
ition of refuse need not be so packaged. Unless the licensed garbage and refuse
collector agrees to pick up such refuse from some other location on the premises it
may be deposited for pickup adjacent to the street or alley from which the pickup is
to be made. Refuse deposited adjacent to a street or alley for pickup shall be de-
posited off the traveled roadway, in one place, at ground.level. No refuse shall be
deposited next to the traveled roadway of any street or alley before sunset of the day
before the day of collection. All refuse, refuse bags, wrappings, cans and disposable
containers so deposited shall be picked up by the licensed garbage and refuse hauler,
so that after pickup no such items are left adjacent to the street or alley. If any
such items are not picked up on the day of collection they shall be removed from
their location next to the street or alley on the day of collection.
Garbage, hOWever, packaged, shall not be deposited for picjup in the front yard of
any residential dwelling unit nor in the sideyard of any corner lot next to the side
street. After pickup, reusable garbage and refuse cans and containers shall be re-
turned by the collector to the place where they are permitted to be stored under the
ordinance.
(70 -24) 7- 27 -70.
(1) Preparation of Garbage and Refuse. Except as otherwise provided in the pre-
ceding paragraph, all garbage and refuse as accumulated on any premises shall be placed
and maintained in containers and shall have drained from it all free liquids before
being deposited for collection and shall be wrapped or bagged. No explosive or highly
imflammable material shall be so deposited. Such material shall be disposed of as
directed by the Fire Chief at the expense of the owner or possessor thereof.
132 7 -27 -70
(2) Contagious Disease Refuse. Refuse such as, but not limited to bedding,
wearing apparel, or utensils from residential dwelling units or other units where
highly infectious'or contagious diseases are present shall not be deposited for
regular collection but shall be disposed of as directed by the sanitarian at the
expense of the owner or possessor thereof.
(3) Duty to Provide and Maintain Containers in Sanitary Condition. Garbage and
refuse containers shall be provided by the owner, tenant, lessee, or occupant of
the premises located in such a manner so as to prevent them from being overturned.
Such containers shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and kept free from
any substance which will attract or breed flies, mosquitoes, or other insects. No
garbage or refuse container shall exceed 32 gallons in capacity or have ragged or
sharp edges or any other defect liable to hamper or injure the person collecting
the contents thereof. Containers not complying with the requirements of this ordin-
ance shall be promptly replaced upon notice.
(4) Garbage Containers. Garbage containers shall be made of metal, or other
suitable material, which is rodent, fire, and waterproof -and which will not easily
corrode and is equipped with suitable handles and tight- fitting covers and shall be
kept tightly covered x7hen there is garbage therein.
(5) Refuse Containers. Refuse containers shall be of a kind suitable for collec-
tion purposes, and shall be of such size and weight that they can be handled by one
man, and kept tightly covered when there is refuse therein.
(6) Multiple residence units having more than three (3) family units and which
require garbage and refuse pickup more frequently than once each week shall either be
equipped with refuse containers and refuse pickup service as provided in this para-
graph (6) or be equipped with a commercial incinerator complying with the requirements
of the Minnesota-Pollution Control Agency and licensed by the city as provided in this
section. Refuse containers provided as an alternative to or in addition to such in-
cineration shall be at least one (1) cubic yard in capacity, shall be conveniently
located in relationship to the residence units for which they are provided, shall be
water -tight and rodent -proof with self - closing lids and shall be kept in an enclosing
structure concealing them from public view. Such structure shall have a raised con -
crete floor. Such structure shall be kept in a state of good repair at all times.
The refuse containers shall be located so that their contents are inaccessible to at
least three (3) feet above the base of the enclosing structure. The owner or operator
of such multiple residence property shall provide for garbage pickup from such con-
tainers. Refuse, debris, garbage, and other waste materials shall not be permitted
to be accumulated in or near the enclosing structures.(except in the containers).
There shall be daily cleanup in and around each such enclosing structure.
(7) The owner or occupant of any commercial establishment or any other property
which produces a volume of garbage or refuse or both, which requires garbage and
refuse pickup more frequently than once each week, shall also comply with the pro-
visions of the foregoing paragraph (6).
Subdivision 5. Air Pollution Control Regulations. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 471.62, Air Pollution Controls and Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards 1 -15, inclusive, of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency are hereby adopted
by reference. The City Clerk shall mark and keep (In file in his office three (3)
copies of said regulations, marked "official copies," for use and examination by
the public and shall furnish a copy of this ordinance and said regulations at cost
to any person upon request.
Subdivision 6. Burnin- Permit.
(1) No person shall willfully burn or set fire to any grass, weeds, or other natural
ground cover, or any building, fixture or appurtenance of real property unless a per-
mit therefor has been secured from the Fire Chief.
132.1_
5 -25 -70
.
(2) No person - hall.ne- ligently or carelessly set on fire or cause to be set
on fire any woods, ;prairie, grass or other combustible material, whether on his
own land or not, by means whereof the 1)roperty of another will be endangered, and
no person shall gill -fully allou any fire on his oxm land, or land occupied by him,
to e..tend beyond the limits thereof.
(3) If a ,permit is re -uired by the terms of this section for any burning, the
Fire Chief may condition the ;ranting of such permit in such a manner as he shall
deem an•)ropriate. A violation of such.cor_ditions shall be a violation of this
ordinance. Pa -nits shall be issued onl17 under such circumstances as may be allowed
by the Air Pollution I;egulations adopted in this ordinance and as may be allowed
by the other ordinances of the city.
Subdivision 7. Vehicles for Hauling Garbage and Refuse. All persons hauling or
corraeyin- garbage o_ refuse over the streets of the city shall use a vehicle pro-
vided with a tight cove_ and so operated and maintained as to prevent offensive
odors escaning therefrom and garbage or refuse from being blo�7n, dropped or spilled
from the vehicle. Any such vehicles shall be kept clean and as free from offensive
odors as possible and, if customarily used for the hauling of garbage or refuse,
shall not be alloTled to stand in any street, alley,,or other place longer than is
reasonably necessary to collect garbage and refuse. Any vehicle customarily used
for such purposes shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and shall be
thoroughly disinfected at least once each -peel, unless the same has not been used
since the last disinfection thereof.
Subdivision Licensing of Garbage and refuse Collectors.
(1) No person shall engage in the business of garbage or refuse collection in
the city unless he shall first pay the license fee herein prescribed and secure
a license from the city to do so in accordance *7ith the provisions of this sub-
division.
(2) Any person desiring a license shall make application to the clerk. The
application shall accurately state (a) the name of the owner or the licensee, (b)
the proposed charges for hauling, (c) a description of the kind of services to be
rendered, (d) a description of each motor vehicle to be used for hauling, including
the license number thereof, and (e) the manner and kind of service proposed to be
given to customers and the schedule of pickups.
(3) No license shall be issued until the applicant files with the clerk a
current policy of insurance covering all vehicles to be used by the applicant in
his business. The minimum limits of coverage for such insurance are:
(a) Each person injured, at least $100,000.
(b) Each accident, at least $300,000.
(c) Property damage, at least $25,000.
Such insurance shall be kept in force during the license and shall provide for
notification or the city prior to termination of cancellation. Any license issued
shall automatically be revoked at the time of termination or cancellation of such -
insurance unless and until other insurance is provided as recnuired by this paragraph
(3)•
Subdivision 9. Bond. 3 ^fore a license is granted the a ?plicant shall furnish to
the city and deposit with the City Clerlc a certified bond in the sum of $1,000 for
each vehicle licensed, to be conditioned upon the faithful performance by the
licensee for all uorI: entered into or contracted for by said licensee and conditioned
upon compliance with all the provisions and reruirements of this section and all
applicable sanitary rules and regulations.
102.2
5 -25 -70
Subdivision 10. (1) License Fee, The annual license fee is $25.00 for the first
vehicle and $10.00 for each additional vehicle in the business of garbage and refuse
hauling within the city.
(2) Temporary Substitute Vehicle. Should any vehicle licensed
pursuant to this section become temporarily inoperable, the hauler may substitute in
its place an unlicensed vehicle for a period not to exceed one week. Unlicensed
substitute vehicles must conform in all respects to the requirements other than
licensing contained in this section. Notice of the substitution must be given the
City Clerk within 36 hours of the beginning of the substitution. (1972 -12) 724:72
Subdivision 11. Hours. No person engaged in hauling refuse or garbage for hire
from residential dwelling units within the city shall do so after 3 :30 p.m. or
before 6:30 a.m. of any day. There shall be no garbage or refuse pickup from resi -.
dential dwelling units residences on Sundays.
Subdivision 12. Inspection. Each vehicle for which a license is applied for or which
is licensed shall be subject to inspection by the city at all reasonable times. Any
such vehicle, while it is used by the licensee in the city, shall have the name of
the licensee clearly printed on both sides and the license for the vehicle shall be
kept in the vehicle at all times while it is being so used.
Subdivision 13. No Vested Right. No person licensed pursuant to this subdivision
shall gain a vested right in said license. The city may, upon finding that public
necessity requires, determine to establish another means of refuse collection.
Subdivision 14. Obligation of Licensed Collectors; A licensed garbage and refuse
collector shall pick up any garbage and refuse of his customers which has been
deposited for collection, in the manner provided by this ordinance.
Subdivision 15. Disposal of Garbage and Refuse. No person shall dispose of garbage
or refuse upon any property in the city except at an approved landfill site. An
approved landfill site is a site for disposal of refuse approved by the city, licensed
by Hennepin County and operated in accordance with the rules and regulations of
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. This paragraph does not limit the disposal
of refuse to sites in the City of Richfield or the County of Hennepin.
Subdivision 16. Storage of Garbage and Refuse Containers. Garbage cans and other
garbage and refuse containers, shall be so located as to be out of the public view
except on the day of pickup.
Subdivision 17- Incinerators. No person shall operate an incinerator within the
city for the burning of garbage or refuse unless such incinerator complies with the
requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. No incinerator, except an
incinerator for a residential dwelling unit, shall be operated within the city un-
less the operation of such incinerator has been licensed by the city as provided in
this subdivision.
(1) Application for a license shall be made to the City Clerk. The application
shall state the name and address of the owner of the property on which the inciner-
ator is located, a description of the type of incinerator, and, except in renewal
applications, a plan showing that the incinerator will comply with applicable rules
and regulations.
(2) The application shall be accompanied by the annual license fee which will
be the sum of $5.00.
(3) Applications for incinerator licenses may be granted by the City Manager if
he ascertains that the incinerator meets the requirements of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and the ordinances of the city. He may, however, refer any such
application to the city council. In the event of such referral to the city council,
the city council may grant or deny the application. It shall be grounds of denial
of the application that applicant, or other persons occupying the premises at which
132.3 7 -24 -72
J
the incinerator is or *.could be located, have not complir2d with regulations of the
city relating to health, safety, building, or :zoning or any regulations applicable
to such incinerator.
(70 -19) 5 -25 -7?
1 ^,. Incinerators Serving 7_ ^aidential U7elling Units. Incinerators
installed to serve residential dwelling units shall comply with the provisions
of this subdi-Ti_sion.
(1) A -?ermit is re-,uired for the inotallation of any incinerator serving a'
residential dwelling unit.
'2) Any such incine_ato-: shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code and shall meet the reruirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control'
Agency.
(3) An outdoor incinerator shall be located as follows:
(a) It shall be at least six (5) feet from any property line, except
that if it is screened on three sides by a fence of barrier wall it may be
located �cithin two (2) feet of the property from which it is screened.
(b) It shall be at least ten (10) feet from the dwelling on the lot
on t.chich it is located.
(c) It shall be at least twelve (12) feet from any dwelling on any
adjacent lot:
(d) It shall be at least one (1) foot from any combustible building,
fence or other structure or material or any trees or shrubs.
(e) If it is protected or screened-it shall be at least one (1) foot
from any part of such protective barrier or screen.
(f) It shall be to the rear of the front building line of the resi-
dential lot on Which it is located and it shall be to the rear of the front
building lire of any abutting lot.
(70- 27)9- 2L -70.
CROSS- REFE- ',ENCE: See Chap. IV, Sec. 4.01, for regulations
relating to littering.
1`12.4 9 -28 -70
"07
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 351
Agenda November 28, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen;
Subject: Agreements with Hennepin County and the City of
Bloomington for Implementation of 1978 Community
Health Services Plan
As council. members are aware, the City of Richfield in 1977 received
approximately $55,000 through a Community Health Services subsidy to ex-
pand our program of personal health services and strengthen our environmental
health activities. This subsidy was used to support one additional environ-
mental health inspector, and to purchase personal health services from the
City of Bloomington's Division of Public Health.
To continue this program in 1978, it is necessary for the city council
to authorize execution of an agreement between the City of Richfield and
Hennepin County, to provide for conveyance of the subsidy monies to the
city from the county. Attached is a copy of the proposed 1978 agreement,
which is identical to the 1977 agreement between the city and the county.
It is recommended that the city council authorize execution of this agreement
for 1978 with Hennepin County.
It is also necessary that the city execute an agreement with the City
of Blocmington to continue the arrangement for the delivery of personal health
services in 1978. A proposed agreement between the cities of Richfield and
Bloomington is also attached to this council letter. This agreement is also
quite similar to the agreement between the two cities which has existed in
1977. The only significant change is a 6% increase in the payment which the
City of Richfield will reimburse to the City of Bloomington for providing
personal health services in 1978. The total 1978 cost for these services to
the city then, will be $75,487 compared with $71,214 in 1977. The overall
budget for the Bloomington Division of Public Health increased by approxi-
mately 6.5% in 1978; this increase represents both the increased cost of
Council Letter No. 351 -2- November 28, 1977
personnel, as well as the overall increased cost of providing the services
to the cities of Richfield and Edina, and I believe it is reasonable that we
share this increased cost. Therefore, it is recommended that the city
council authorize execution of the attached agreement with the City of
Bloomington, providing for the purchase of personal health services in
1978.
It is also recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution, providing for transfer of $4, 273 from the 1977 contingency
account to the 1978 Environmental and Personal Health Services budget.
This transfer will provide sufficient funding in the 1978 budget to meet
the total cost of providing personal health services to Richfield residents
in 1978.
Respectfully submitted,
o
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
cc: Administrative Assistant
Finance Director
Environmental Health Director
J
A.GREEriENi
Contract NO.
r Board
e Hennepin Count
itt.to by and between the �, herein -
d axed entere Minneapolis, M:Cnn °uota 55 87 y Q aka
TTY. %8 AGP.I E14T,NT is ma v Centers E e :rf 4aiF "s, E ehf a c. a
5.'ars A,-24 Governnt�sbt n
®f Col,���.ssio'�. P o,CounLy„ s t.ttc ODE' C� r�r of
efel r o as tb� , 'Q1 4:ytc d
roil to �,s
IdITNES-SETH
G�� to provide Co.�unity health Serv�-ceu under the
the Municipality F4ishe
�:rgTR AS , o f 19 7 6 y and
Camunity Health Services Act srtment of Health for the .
Y:' � from the Minnesota DeP
VME�.EAS, fund,- are al �7� tal t.h gee vice y an"
provision of COJYLun.it;
support such services -
�r1iEI =LAS, the Cou►-,ty wishes to �l wnd agreements
Y of the mutual, und-ertalci Bs as follows
NOW TT�ERE�'0� a irz cons t oe. ation and the Municipality agree
NO � - the County
hereinafter set forths
ANT through
1. TET� OP t�GiZEI� from January 1, 1978,
Of this P.greement shall b cancellation provisions herein.
The term subject to the
. Decert1ber 31s 1978,
91 COUNT'X SUPPOp-'r
2. CO�n;ITTONS to the Municipality i=t
Health Services as
The County agrees to make payments of Covmun_ty Plan,
ae the provision Health Services
reimbursemerlt for aide Community Minnesota
described in the 1978 Count Plan", written pursuant to
On file at the Hennepin
hereinafter referred to copy of which is A -2808 Government
Laws 1976, Chapter a and Development, of this
County Office
of Planning orated into and made a part
Center. The Plan is 'nco forth
herein-
Center.
as is fully Health
Municipality for Community
The total cash payments to the 54.00.
b° shall not exceed >
' Services � will be made in four (4)
Municipality 1978, July 1, 1978,
These payments to the aid on or about April 1, Payments
C. to be P 1979, respectively,
installments and January 1, Payment of claims
_.. 1978, Provided by law for P Yt"
October 1:
shall be made in the manner p"
against the county.
OF THE PARTIES' OBLIGATIONS arties
3. CONT?TTIONS A regiment be
the pfrom
and agreed that the g sufficient funding
It is understoodu on the County receiving;
is conditional
a.
P
- 2 -
the State of Minnesota. If such funding is not available, this
Agreement shall be cancelled.immediately upon written notice to
the Municipality, other provisions for cancellation of this
Agreement notwithstanding. This Agreement may be renegotiated
to reflect any reduced funding.
b. This Agreement or any part, thereof may be cancelled by either
party upon thirty (30) days' writteen notice delivered by mail or
in person if by State law, regulation, or policy the relationship
between the County and Municipality as it concerns the expenditure
of State funds for the purpose of providing the services as de-
scribed in the Plan is modified as to render the obligations
under this contract materially changed.
c. The Municipality agrees to mare expenditures of State funds pro-
vided through County payments only for the.purpose of providing
services aG-described in the Plan, and within the constraints of
the categories described in the budget conta -ned in that Plan,
and to reimburse to the County any and all County payments in
excess of budgeted, amounts within thirty (30) days of the
expiration date of this Agreement.
d. Both parties to this Agreement shall make a good faith effort
to determine if payments to-subcontractors anticipated in the
budget contained in the Plan duplicate payments by the County
directly to those subcontractors pursuant to any other agreements
between the County and such subcontractors, and shall endeavor to
use all information available to prevent any such duplicate
payment to a subcontractor.
e. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of pro -
visions of this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been
reduced to writing, duly signed, -and attached to the original of
this Agreement.
f. Upon cancellation or termination of this Agreement, the
Municipality will reimburse to the County any and all unobligated
funds as required by the Mi!.mesota Department of Health. This
reimbursement shall be made within sixty (60) days of the effective
date of such termination.
g. In the event of any policy changes of the M- unicipality in types
of clients to be served, types of services, service hours, or
service location, the Municipality will notify and consult with
the County before implementing the new policy.
4. AUDITS, REPORTS, MONITORING PROCEDURES, AND RECORDS
a. The Municipality will:
(1) Maintain a bookkeeping system which sufficiently and prop-
erly reflects all direct and indirect costs of any nature
3
expended in the performance of this Agreement. An example
of a system which provides the minimum— amount of information
is described in Exhibit A, such Exhibit being incorporated
into and made a part of this Agreement.
(Z) Maintain all financial books and records for at least five
(5) years for audit purposes; provided that if the County
furnishes written notice during this period requesting
retention of records to.allow completion of an audit by the
County or its ultimate sources of funds, the Municipality
shall retain records for the period requested.
(3) Provide an estimated quarterly budget/ex- penditure report
within thirty (30) days to the County as described in
Exhibit t attached hereto, such Exhibit being incorporated
into and made a part of this Agreement; provided, however,
that the last quarterly report shall include actual
expenditures for the year.
(4) Provide an evaluation report to the County within forty -five
(45) days of the expiration date of this Agreement as
described in the Plan.
b. The County will monitor and evaluate the performance of the
Muzlic:`.i:ality under this Agreement on an ongoing basis.
5. DATA PEIVIiCY .
The use or disclosure by any party of information concerning a
recipient of service or applicant in violation of the Minnesota Data
Privacy Act or Federal regulations on data privacy or for any purpose
not directly connected with the administration of the County's or
Municipality's responsibility with respect to the services hereunder
is prohibited except on written consent of such recipient of service,
his /her attorney, or his /her responsible parent or guardian.
6. INDEMNITY
The Municipality does hereby agree that it will at all times indemnify
and hold harmless the County against any and all liability, loss,
damages, costs, and expenses which the County may hereafter sustain,
incur, or be required to pay:
a. By reason of any recipient of service suffering personal injury,
death, or property loss or damage either while participating in
or receiving the care and services to be furnished under this
Agreement, or while on premises oTmed, leased, or operated by
Municipality, or while being; transported to or from said premises
in any vehicle owned, operated, leased, chartered, or otherwise
contracted for by the Municipality or any officer, agent, or
employee thereof; or
- 4 -
b. By reason of any recipient of service causing injury to, or
damage to the property of another person during any time when
Municipality or any officer, agent, or employee thereof has
undertaken or is furnishing the care and services called for
under this AgreC.men.t, or
C. By reason of any person employed by-the Municipality or alleged
to be employed by the Municipality, for any claim or cause of
action in equity or for damages arising out of the employment or
alleged employment, or discrimination by the Municipality;.or
d. By reason of any act or omission_ of the Municipality, his agents,
offico,:s, or employees in the performance of services under this
Agrec rant.
7. EQUAL EMPL0'Y ,H NT OPPORTUNITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS
During the performance of this Agreement, the Municipality agrees to
the foliosring:
No person shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, age, sex,
disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assistance
status, ex- offender status, or rational origin, be excluded from full
employment -rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program, service,
or activity under the provisions of any and all applicable Federal
and State laws against discrimination including the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. The Municipality will furnish all information and reports
required by Hennepin County-or by Executive Order No. 11246 and
Revised Order No. 4, and by the rules and regulations and orders of
the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain
compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders.
8. SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNk1ENTS
The Municipality shall be responsible for the performance of any and
all subcontractors.
9. INDEPEIiDENT CONTRACTOR
It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship
of co- partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the
Municipality or the Municipality's employees or agents as the agent,
representative, or employee of Hennepin County.
10. DEFAULT
a. Neither party hereto shall be held responsible for delay or
failure to perform hereunder when such delay or failure is due
to fire, flood, epidemic, strikes, acts of God or the public
enemy, unusually severe weather, Legal acts of the public
authorities, or delays or defaults caused by public carriers,
which cannot reasonably be forecast or provided against.
5
b. Unless the Municipality's default is excused undEr_ the provisions
of this Agreement, the Cou -nty may, by written notice of default
to the Municipality, cancel the whole . or any part of this
Agreement in any of the follmring circus -astances:
(1) If the Municipality fails
this AgrceLienr -u thin the
extension thereof;. or
to pro-vide services calle.,i for .by
time specified herein or any
(2) If the Municipality fails to perform any of the othcar
provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to prosecute the
work as to endanger peryorman.ce of this Agreement in
accordance with its ter-ais .
If, in the opinion of the .County, the MunicipaI4t:y does not cure
such failure w:ithin a period of ten (10) days (or such longer
period as the authorized representative of the County may approve
in writ;:i.a:igr) after receipt of notice from the County specifying
such failure, the County shall ,detail the a1. egations or cause of
the alleged failure and the Municipality shall have an additional
fourteen (14) days to respond. If the matter is then unresolved
to the satisfaction of the County, an, authorized representative
of the County will make a final determination as to the existence
of either of the two (2) circumstances stated above. The autho-
rized representative of the County wil1.1 reduce his/her decision
to writing and furnish a copy thereof to the Municipality. The
decision of the authorized representative of the County shall be
final and conclusive unless, within thirty (30) days from the
date of receipt of such copy, the Municipality furnishes to the
person who rendered the decision a written appeal addressed to
the County. The decision of the County, or its duly authorized
representative for the determination of such arfpeals, shall be
final and conclusive unless determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction to have been fraudulent, capricious, arbitrary, so
grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or not
supported by substantial evidence. In connection with any appeal
proceeding under this clause, the Municipality shall be af-;'orded
an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of
its appeal. Pending final decision of a dispute hereunder, the
Municipality shall proceed diligently with the performance of
the Agreement and in accordance with the decision rendered by
the County.
C. Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any
subsequent default. .Waiver of breach of any provision of this
Agreement shall not be construed to be modification of the terms
of this Agreement unless stated to be such in writing, signed by
an authorized.representative of the County, and attached to the
original Agreement.
d. The - rights and remiedies of the County provided in this clause
shall, not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights
and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.
11. NOTICE . OF C.' NCELLATION
a. After receipt of a notice of cancellation, except as othen.7ise
directed, the Municipality shall:
(1) Discontinue provision of services under this Agreement on
the.date, and to the extent specified, in the notice of
cancellation;
(2) Cancel all orders and subcontracts to the extent that they
relate to the performance of the part of this Agreement
cancelled by the notice of cancellation;
(3) Settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising
out of such cancellation of order: and subcontract`-, with
the approval or ratification to the extent than may be
required, which approval or ratification shall be final.
for all the purposes of this clause; and
(4) Complete performance of such .part of the Agreement as shall
not have been cancelled by the notice of cancellation.
b. In the event of cancellation, the Municipality shall reimburse
to the County any and all unobligated funds as required by the
Minnesota Department of Health or shall reimburse the County any
excess abovF, the amount of money which bears the same ratio to
the total compensation in this Agreement as the number of days
elapsed in the term of the Agreement bears to the entire term of
the Agreement. The actual reimbursement shall be the larger of
these two amounts and shall be made within sixty (60) days of
the effective date of such cancellation.
c. The Municipality shall maintain all records relating to perfor-
mance of the cancelled portion of this Agreement as may be
required by the County.
12. MERGER
It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement of the parties
is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral
7 -
agreements and negotiations be,77cen the parties relating to the
subject matter hereof. All items incorporated -by reference are
attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement.
IN VTfTNESS 4ThEru-':OF, the County and the Municipality have executed this Agreement on
the clay of
Upon proper execution, this Agreement
will be legally valid and biuding and
upoox date of approval -is in compliance
with all lads relating to the subject
herein.
Assistant County, `Attorney
Date
Approved as to execution
Assistant County Attorney
Date
HENNEPIN COLYi ?T`i BOARD OF COI- MISSIONERS
Attest
By
Chairman of Its County Board
Deputy County Auditor
Deputy County Admix .strator
CITY Or r7Ir° 1! 1, L
By
And
STATE OF MINNESOTA }
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On this day of - -- 19 , before
me appeared to me personally
known, who being by me duly sworn did say that he /she is the
of
the corporation described
in and who executed the foregoing instrument; and that said instrument
was executed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its
and said
acknowledged said instrument
to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
EXHIBIT A
1. The Municipality's bookkeeping system shall be adequate to produce the
required records to ensure adequate accountability under this Agreement.
One example of a system which provides the minimum amount of information
is:
a. Cash Disbursements Journal
b. Cash Receipts Journal
c. General Journal
d. General Ledger
e. Property Records
f. Individual Earnings Records
Y Separate Checking Account
h. Adequate Supportive Documentation
i. Cost allocation schedules when all programs of the Municipality are
not funded by this Agreement and overheat( allocations and other
can;mon costs are involved. Note: Salaries and wages of employees.
chargeable only in part to the program under this Agreement must be
supported by appropriately documented time distribution records.
Documentation must also be on file and up to date in support of all
other allocation basis used to distribute costs in part to the
program under this Agreement.
Alternative bookkeeping systems must be approved by the County or its
besignee in order to ensure such accountability.
"CS
CD
U
CD
7
N
LU F�
Co ❑
L 0
z CL
o �❑
>a�
0
U
O
i'
❑
U i
L
O
CJ
Q
a (LS
W
CL- X
• �^
!\ W H
W
ANFIR
W
CJ '>
Q 'L w
:orc
m
z
0
N
z
/Q
V
O
z
Q
U_
a_
cL
Q
U-
0
cn
W
D
Q
z
LLJ
Q
z
cr-
Q
U)
J
Q
U
z
LL
T
� C
7
� u_
0 �
Z_ Z
O
z t-
Q Q
~ � C
F
_j O Co
0 U Q
m
a
T y
� C
W
cc D w
____
_Q
0 0
zo
WT
U Q
10
CL
T
a �
7 7
Nu
Cn
W �
M O
D
r
O a
Lu (n
W
d _ 2O
X "; (0
W V Q
U U
t0
d
T
a�
�
�
7 7
N W
F-
w
0
D C
m U
U Q
0.5
J •@
a
Q
tr
c�
0
M
CL
O
N
C
J V'
z�
of
ua C7
vJ o
(� O
L O Q
LL
}
CO
CB
d�
f-
c
't'
tL
U U
U
0-0
F�
zn
0
LUu j
i° CO
L
)
U O
P
Q � C✓
N N
N
a_ 41 M
W C5 X
LLLJ W
W
Q (� W
O m 1
1 f
f
M U_ Q
Q Q
Q
z �
Z
s
O
+r
L �
O
U-
"CS
CD
U
CD
7
N
LU F�
Co ❑
L 0
z CL
o �❑
>a�
0
U
O
i'
❑
U i
L
O
CJ
Q
a (LS
W
CL- X
• �^
!\ W H
W
ANFIR
W
CJ '>
Q 'L w
:orc
m
z
0
N
z
/Q
V
O
z
Q
U_
a_
cL
Q
U-
0
cn
W
D
Q
z
LLJ
Q
z
cr-
Q
U)
J
Q
U
z
LL
T
� C
7
� u_
0 �
Z_ Z
O
z t-
Q Q
~ � C
F
_j O Co
0 U Q
m
a
T y
� C
W
cc D w
____
_Q
0 0
zo
WT
U Q
10
CL
T
a �
7 7
Nu
Cn
W �
M O
D
r
O a
Lu (n
W
d _ 2O
X "; (0
W V Q
U U
t0
d
T
a�
�
�
7 7
N W
F-
w
0
D C
m U
U Q
0.5
J •@
a
Q
tr
c�
0
M
CL
O
N
C
J V'
z�
of
ua C7
vJ o
(� O
L O Q
LL
}
CO
CB
d�
0
Q, c
U) L
W
� c
M _O
•N
�- o ti >
o 0
z ,M �°
LU LU
a
X U) .O •ti
W -0-0 :3
co N
o z 0 �+, -0
-
N V- CU
V) �'. z U
Z O 0 c
O co
O N < �. O W
Q> X' 4 E U U
U) '� W w U C7 N O cv LL.
c
(D Q� C �LY� v J o
_0
to .- a- J c a� E Z uj
c Q -0 .0 U W tL w
� j U> D CD 0 0 0 z +� O C3
U) W LL 0 U) L .+, -j W o Co C 0 Q
U Q -0 N ca C u.. LL i— +, O uJ z
0 o2Q4>+ N_ Q
o
m � O x cc - — U U '° �
Q L
z c a C
-C :-5 ) c) cu
> > v o — J U o OC
Q
u c
E w W O _0
o L
U) d td v Q U a u.. <
E c Q F +
U a: 0 w Z w O —
c
U U
U
i° CO
L
U O
N N
N
' (4
> - L
LLLJ W
W
O m 1
1 f
f
M U_ Q
Q Q
Q
-O
L �
O cu-
Q, c
U) L
W
� c
M _O
•N
�- o ti >
o 0
z ,M �°
LU LU
a
X U) .O •ti
W -0-0 :3
co N
o z 0 �+, -0
-
N V- CU
V) �'. z U
Z O 0 c
O co
O N < �. O W
Q> X' 4 E U U
U) '� W w U C7 N O cv LL.
c
(D Q� C �LY� v J o
_0
to .- a- J c a� E Z uj
c Q -0 .0 U W tL w
� j U> D CD 0 0 0 z +� O C3
U) W LL 0 U) L .+, -j W o Co C 0 Q
U Q -0 N ca C u.. LL i— +, O uJ z
0 o2Q4>+ N_ Q
o
m � O x cc - — U U '° �
Q L
z c a C
-C :-5 ) c) cu
> > v o — J U o OC
Q
u c
E w W O _0
o L
U) d td v Q U a u.. <
E c Q F +
U a: 0 w Z w O —
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
(Community Health Services)
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,
1977, by and between the CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal,
corporation, in the` County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ( "Bloomington "),
and the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal. corporation, in the County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Richfield").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Bloomington warrants and represents that its Division of Public
Health is a duly certified public health agency operating in accordance with all
applicable federal and state requirements; and
WHEREAS, Bloomington's Division of Public Health provides community
health services, including, but not limited to, nursing services, home health
services, disease prevention and control services, family planning services,
early detection of health problems, nutritional services, and health education,
and
WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to promote, support, and maintain the health of
its residents by providing community health services, including education,
disease prevention, early detection of health problems, and nursing care, at
a nominal fee to those making use of such services, and to contract with
Bloomington for Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, to provide
such services to residents of Richfield.
WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Bloomington and Richfield are authorized
by Minnesota Statutes, Section 145.914, Subdivision 5, Section 145.917,
Subdivision 3, and by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, to provide community
health services and to enter into agreements with each other for the providing by
Bloomington of community health services to residents of Richfield,
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, for and in consideration of the
covenants thereinafter set forth, agree as follows:
1. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, agrees to it ovide
residents of Richfield with the following community health services (the "Health
Services "):
A. Home care services involving intermittent home visits by
nurses, aides, or therapists for individuals or families suffering illness,
with treatment to be provided in accordance with a medical plan cf care
determined either by Bloomington or by a qualified physician acceptable
to Bloomington, and periodic home visits for assessment, observation,
evaluation, preventive health techniques, and follow -up of clinical
findings.
B. Adult health services consisting of clinical sessions in the
areas of family planning, venereal disease and communicable disease
prevention, and clinical services for well women dealing with gynecologic
health screening, teaching, and counseling on female health issues.
C. Children. health Services comprising clinical sessions for
well children, early and periodic screening, and communicable disease
testing and immunization.
D. Public health informational and educational services,
including providing any and all groups requesting the same with speakers
p akers
on health - rotated topics, and assisting such groups in developing health
Programs.
I . School health support services, involving screening, teaching,
and counseling of students.
F. Senior citizen health services, including clinical screening,
therapeutic visits, outreach contacts, counseling, teaching, nutritional
services, and well - adult visits.
G. Counseling on any or all of the foregoing health services with
individuals, couples, families, and groups requesting the same, including
ing
chemical dependency counseling.
2 • The Health Services shall be provided and rendered hereunder to
the
residents of Richfield in the same manner, to at least the same extent and
with
at least the same quality and kind of personnel, equipment, and facilities
.�asthe
Health Services are provided and rendered to residents of Bloomington
the Latent and � it being
purpose of this Agreement to provide and render the Health Services
equally to residents of Bloomington and Richfield without discrimination in
any
WaY. In addition, Bloomington agrees (i.) to provide the Health Services as
Paragraph I.F. at such senior citizen centers as are from time to time designated
g aced
by Richfield and (ii) to provide mobile mini - clinics for special uses such as
blood pressure testing and immunizations during the term of this Agreement, g meat, a t
locations within the City of Richfield, including, but not limited to the
City
Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, and the Community Center, 7000 Nicollet Avenue.
b ;
The mobile mini- clinics shall be set up on such days, and for such hours ,
during such days, as Bloomington shall determine, and need not be set up
at the same time in all of said locations, but during the term of this
Agreement a mobile mini- clinic shall be set up at least six (6) times, at
each such location. Bloomington shall give a schedule of dates and times
when such mobile mini - clinics shall be established at least thirty (30)
days in advance of the scheduled dates, except in emergency situations.
3. Bloomington shall provide the Health Services pursuant hereto
on a confidential basis, using capable, trained professionals.
4. All'Health Services to be rendered hereunder by Bloomington
shall be rendered pursuant to and subject to public health policies, rules
and procedures now or hereafter, from time to time', adopted by the
Bloomington City Council, and in full, compliance with all applicable state
and federal laws, provided however, that (i) no such policy, rule, or
procedure hereafter adopted by the Bloomington City Council shall in any
way affect, modify, or change the obligations, duties, liabilities, or rights
of the parties hereto as set out in this Agreement, or reduce or detract from
the kind, quality, and quantity of Health Services to be provided hereunder
by Bloomington to residents of Richfield, and (ii) all such policies, rules,
and procedures shall be uniformly applied to all persons receiving Health
Services from Bloomington, whether residents of Bloomington, Richfield, or
any other municipality. Richfield agrees to adopt the same policies, rules
and procedures as are from time to time adopted by Bloomington, if determined
by Richfield to be necessary or desirable to facilitate or regulate the provision
of Health Services by Bloomington to residents of Richfield pursuant hereto.
5. Richfield agrees to pay to Bloomington, for the provision of Health
= Services pursuant hereto, amounts and on terms as follows;
A, The sum of $75, 4B7 per annum. $18, 871 .75 dollars (the "Quarterly
Payment ") shall be paid to Bloomington within fifteen (15) days of the receipt by
Richfield of each of the reports to be given pursuant to paragraph 5.B. hereof,
subject, however, to the provisions of paragraph 5, C. hereof.
B. On April. 15, .July 15, and October 15, 1978, and on January 15,
1979, Bloomington shall send to Richfield a statement, certified by the person
in charge of Bloomington's Division of Public Health as being true and correct,
and covering the period the three (3) calendar months preceding the month in
which the report is given, and setting forth, in such detail as Richfield from
time to time shall reasonably require, the number of persons served, the kinds
of Health Services delivered, the locations where such services were delivered,
and such other information as Richfield shall reasonably request.
C. No payment or payments need to be made by Richfield under this
Agreement while Bloomington is in default under any of the terms and conditions
hereof to be by Bloomington performed. Payments withheld by Richfield for
non - performance of services by Bloomington shall be limited to one - quarter of
the contract price or portion thereof.
6. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial books and records
of Bloomington relating to the providing of Health Services hereunder by Bloomington,
Bloomington shall make its financial books and records available at the Bloomington
City Hall for inspection and copying by Richfield, or any agent, employee, or
representative of Richfield at reasonable business hours.
7. It shall be the sole responsibility of Bloomington to determine the
qualifications, functions, training, and performance standards for all health
service personnel who render Health Services under this Agreement; provided,
however, that Bloomington agrees that all such personnel shall be capable,
trained professionals.
8. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate regularly
with the Richfield Health Department, Richfield Department of Public. Safety,
and Richfield Department of Parks and Recreation relative to the Health Services
to be performed hereunder by Bloomington, such communication to be in the form
of reports, conferences, or consultations, as the respective Richfield departments
from time to time shall request. Also, all reports relating to the providing of
Health Services that are given by Bloomington's Division of Public Health to the
Bloomington City Council or to the City Manager during the term of this Agreement
shall also, and at the same time, be given to Richfield.
9. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield an annual report
describing the activities performed and Health Services rendered pursuant to
this Agreement. Such report shall be in such detail and form as Richfield may
reasonably from time to time request. The annual report shall be sent with and
in addition to the last quarterly report required by paragraph S.B. hereof. Also,
at Richfield's request, made not more than two (Z) times during the term of this
Agreement, responsible administrative officers of Bloomington's Division of
Public Health shall attend meetings of the Richfield City Council or appropriate
boards or commissions to answer questions and give further information relative
to the activities performed and Health Services rendered under this Agreement.
10. Bloomington hereby agrees to maintain in force its present policy
of comprehensive liability insurance and medical malpractice insurance in the
minimum amount, of Five hundred thousand ($500, 000) dollars for the term of
this contract. A copy of the policy or policies issued shall. be furnished to
Richfield. Said policy shall be with an insurance company authorized to do
business in Minnesota.
11 . This Agreement shall be for a period from January 1, 1978 to December
31, 1978, provided that either party may terminate the same by thirty (30) days
written notice to the other. Upon such termination, all obligations and liabilities
of the parties hereunder shall cease and terminate, except that the provisions of
paragraph 11 hereof shall continue and survive such termination. Also, in the
event of termination pursuant hereto, the Quarterly Payment next due shall be
prorated and paid for only the period ended on the date of termination, and
Bloomington shall send to Richfield, within thirty (30) days after such termination,
a report in the form required by paragraph 5.B. , and shall also then send a final
report in the form of, and in lieu of, the annual report required by paragraph 10
hereof, and Richfield shall pay such reduced Quarterly Payment for the period ended
on the date of termination, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of both of such
reports .
12. Bloomington and Richfield understand and agree that each of them
shall apply and qualify, independently and separately, for any and all grants,
matching funds, and payments of all kinds from state, federal, and other
governmental bodies relating to, or for the provision of, any or all of the Health
Services, and any and all such grants, matching funds, and payments shall belong
' to the recipient and be used and applied as the recipient thereof shall determine,
without regard to this Agreement.
13. All notices, reports, or demands required. or permitted to be given
under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when
delivered personally to any officer of the party to which notice is being given,
or when deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered
or certified mail, postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the parties at the
following addresses:
To Bloomington: 2215 West Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
Attention:
To Richfield: 6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Attention: City Manager
Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party
given as herein provided.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed and their corporate seals to be affixed hereto the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
By_
Its
and
its
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By _
Its
and
Its
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RESERVATION
OF 1977 CONTINGENCY FOR AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has negotiated a contract with the City
of Bloomington to provide public health services to the.citizens of Richfield
during 1978, and
WHEREAS, the approved contract is approximately $4,300 in excess of the
adopted 1978 budget and it is necessary to provide an additional appropriation
to fund this service, and
WHEREAS, there presently is an unused contingency provided in the 1977
budget in excess of the amount needed for the public health services.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
as follows:
1. The sum of $4,300 is hereby reserved from the 1977
Contingency for public health services.
2. The 1978 Annual Budget is hereby amended whereby the
Health Department appropriation is increased $4,300.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this
28th day of November, 1977.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran Mayor
t �
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
4 Gentlemen:
Council Letter No. 350
Agenda November 28, 1977
Subject: Referral and Relocation Grievance Procedures
The purpose of this letter is to propose referral and relocation grievance
procedures which must be adopted both by the city council and the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority. Therefore, there is a similar letter on the HRA
agenda. The procedures themselves are also similar although. one set is designed
to be used by the City and the other by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
The Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
is the legislation requiring that the HRA and the City provide relocation assist-
ance and payments to people being displaced because of public acquisition.
This law also mandates that a grievance procedure be established to provide
displaced people with an opportunity for review of their case if they are dissat-
isfied with the settlement provided, or the overall. relocation process. The law
further gives the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development the authority
to write regulations regarding such a grievance procedure.
Attached to this letter are two proposed grievance procedures which conform
to the law and to the HUD requirements. The two procedures are substantially
the same ali.tiough one process applies to persons dissatisfied with the amount
of payment they receive, while the other procedure is for people dissatisfied with
referrals made to them for replacement housing.
Although the grievance procedures tend to be complex, the process basically
provides opportunity for an aggrieved party to state his case to either the city
manager or someone lie designates. This person must be someone who was not
involved in the original determination, and also must have the authority to
override the previous relocation decision.
If both the aggrieved person and the city manager or his designee agree, an
advisory committee can be formed to hear the claim and to make a recommendation.
< Council Letter No. 350 -2- November 28, 1977
If the claimant is still dissatisfied following this advisory committee hearing,
the claimant has two alternatives. judicial review can be sought if no federal
money is involved in the projects that resulted in the displacement. If federal
money is involved in the project, the appeal then goes to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for review. A judicial review may also be
sought after the HUD review, if the claimant is still dissatisfied...
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached relocation
grievance procedure.
Respectfully subm ted,
Y)64�d S.
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /eja
cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director
City Attorney
RELOCATION GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
for
the City of Richfield, Minnesota
Your eligibility for a relocation payment and the amount of remimbursement
for moving and related expenses will be determined by a specialist in the
Uniform Relocation Act. However, even a specialist has one major flaw- -
he is human and will at times make mistakes. Also, some of the decisions
he will make will be judgmental and based on his years of experience in-
relocation. You may not agree with his judgments or with the City's actions.
To insure that the decisions regarding your claim are not arbitrary, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the State of Minnesota,
by adoption of Federal regulations, have established a grievance procedure.
You may appeal your lack of eligibility for a payment or the amount deter-
mined to be eligible for reimbursement. The procedure is a complicated
one. But remember that it was established that way to guarantee your right
of fair review. We'suggest that initially you skim the procedure and then
keep this booklet for reference should you in the future need to appeal
either the Housing and Redevelopment Specialist's recommendation or the
City's final action.
Let's Go Over The Basics
Before explaining the appeal process, there are some general principles that
you should know. These are outlined below.
I. Once again, you may appeal a determina�:ion that you are not
eligible for a relocation payment, or the actual dollar amount
of a payment made.
2. The Housing and Redevelopment Specialist's recommendation's and the City's
final actions will be based on applicable 'rules and regulations estab-
lished by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and adopted
by the State of Minnesota. These rules and regulations will be
liberally interpreted to fulfill the intent of the law. The Uniform
Relocation Act.was written and passed to insure "fair and equitable
treatment" in order that displaced persons "not suffer disproportionate
injuries as a result of programs designed for the benefit of the public
as a whole ".
3. You have the right to representation by an attorney or other person
of your choosing at your own expense at any and all stages of the
grievance procedure.
4. You have the right to inspect all files and records relevant to your
claim or the prosecution of your grievance, except for confidential
material or to the extent specifically prohibited by law. The City
may, however; impose reasonable conditions on your right of inspection.
5. The time limits found within the appeal procedure may be extended by
the City for good cause.
6. Nothing in the grievance process shall in any way preclude or limit
you from seeking judicial review upon completion of all administra-
tive remedies available herein.
7. Any principle established in a City determination will be applied to
all similar cases, regardless of whether the person has filed a
written request for review.
It's Your Choice
The City can make three determinations that you may appeal. It may decide you
are not eligible for a payment because you do not meet the criteria for eligi-
bility; or it may refuse to consider your claim because you did not file in
accordance with established time limits, and in doing so find you not eligible
-2-
for payment; or it may determine not to make payment in the full amount claimed
by you. If any of these three decisions are made, you will be notified of it,
informed of the reasons, and reminded of the review procedure.
When you receive the City's determination, you have four options and they must
be exercised either within six months or prior to project close -out, whichever
is earlier. (The only exception is if you are denied total payment because you
did not file within the limits specified. See "Are You On Time ? ") In all cases,
though, you will have thirty days minimum to act. The four options are the
following;
1. Accept the determinations.
2. Request a full written explanation.
3. Request an oral review.
4. Request a formal written review
Any person with the right of review may request a full written explanation of
the City's determinations if you believe the explanation included in your claim
was inaccurate or incomplete. This will be completed by the City within fifteen
days of receipt of your request.
Regardless of whether you have requested a full written explanation or plan to
request the formal written review, you may make an oral presentation to the
City Manager or his representative. In no case will the person hearing your
presentation be the one who made the initial determination; and the person
must have the authority to revise the City's initial action. In addition, as
previously stated, you have the right to be represented by a person of your
own choosing at your own expense.
Your oral presentation will be held within fifteen days of your request.
-3-
Regardless of whether the City changes its original determination, it will write
a summary of the matters discussed, which will then be included as part of your
file. The oral presentation gives you the opportunity to informally discuss
your grievance with City personnel who have the power to change the initial
decision.
The "Nifty Gritty"
Your fourth option when an adverse determination has been made is to request a
formal written review. This must be done within the time limits first stated.
If, however, you have previously requested either a full written explanation or
an oral presentation or both, and the time limit has expired, you are guaranteed
thirty days from the receipt of the explanation or from your presentation;
whichever is later, to file a written request for review.
Your written request for review may include any statement of fact within your
knowledge or belief, and any other material that you believe has a bearing on
your appeal. If you ask for more time to gather or prepare additional material
and can show a need for more time, you may be granted an additional thirty days
from the date of your request, for preparation. Finally, if you believe that
you cannot prepare a written claim, the City must provide you with assistance
and notify you of other available sources of help.
Request for HUD Review
If the money used to acquire the property you owned and /or rented was provided
by the Federal government, the City's final determination is subject to review
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The request for HUD re-
determination must be made within ten days after receiving the City's review
to the HUD area office in Minneapolis in writing, with a copy sent to the City
-4-
Council. Upon receipt of this request, the City will send its file to HUD
within five days and the federal department then has fifteen days to make
its findings. It will consider the same type of information as the City
did in its review and HUD will include the same types of .information in its
written opinion as the City must in its written final determination. You
should include with the written request to the HUD area office any facts,
beliefs, or other material which you believe has a direct bearing on your
request. However, you do not-need to resubmit 'any such information already
given to the City as this will be included in their file to the HUD area
office.
Are You On Time?
If you do not file.your request for review within the stated time limits or
your complaint is dismissed for some other reasons not related to the merits
of your claim, the City will issue a statement to you as to the reasons for
the dismissal. So don't forget to be on time!
Finally, if you forgot to check your calendar and were denied a relocation
payment because you did not file a claim within eighteen months after dis-
placement or the acquisition of your site, whichever is later, you could
have asked for a waiver of the time limit. If this request was rejected,
you may also file for a written review. This must, however, be within thirty
days of your receipt of the City's rejection.
The End
Don't forget, if you still believe you were unfairly denied either a payment
because you were considered ineligible, or full payment of the amount requested,
after completion of the grievance process, you still have the right to judicial
-5-
f
review by the courts. The Housing and Redevelopment Specialist and the City
of Richfield sincerely hope you are not forced to this alternative. They
will make every effort to be fair and allot you all you are eligible to by
law. They will try not to be unreasonable and hope you will make the same
efforts.
-6-
3
HOUSING�REFERRAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
for
the City of Richfield, Minnesota
As a residential tenant in a project area being forced to move,
you are not only entitled to monetary benefits but also to assist-
ance in finding replacement housing comparable to your present site.
You may not be displaced until this housing has been located. There-
fore, you may wish to appeal the City's housing referrals made to
you on the grounds that they were not adequate. If you have not
moved from the project area before you request a written review,
you will be allowed to remain until 20 days after the final deter-
mination through grievance and in no case may you be displaced unless
you are offered adequate housing. If you have already moved prior to
filing a grievance to housing determined not to be adequate, the City
must pay your moving costs a second time to comparable housing.
The grievance procedure is a complicated one. But remember that it
was established that way to guarantee your right of fair review.
We suggest that initially you skim the procedure and then keep this
booklet for reference should you in the future need to appeal either
the Housing and Redevelopment Specialist's recommendation or the
City's final action.
Let's Go Over the Basics
Before explaining the appeal process, there are some general princi-
ples that you should know. These are outlined below.
1. Once again, you may appeal a determination that you were referred
to adequate replacement housing.
2. The Housing and Redevelopment Specialist's recommendations and
the City's final actions will be based on applicable rules and
regulations established by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and adopted by the State of Minnesota. These
rules and regulations will be liberally interpreted to fulfill
the intent of the law. The Uniform Relocation Act was written
and passed to insure "fair and equitable treatment" in order
that displaced persons "not suffer disproportionate injuries
as a result of programs designed for the benefit of the public
as a whole."
3. You have the right to representation by an attorney or other
person of your choosing at your own expense at any and all
stages of the grievance procedure.
4. You have the right to inspect all files and records relevant
to your claim or the prosecution of your grievance, except for
confidential material or to the extent specifically prohibited
by law. The City may, however, impose reasonable conditions
on your right of inspection.
5. The time limits found within the appeal procedure may be
extended by the City for good cause.
6. Nothing in the grievance process shall in any way preclude or
limit you from seeking judicial' review upon completion of all
administrative remedies available herein.
7. Any principle established in a City determination will be
applied to all similar cases, regardless of whether the person
has filed a written request for review.
It's Your Choice
A person with a complaint relative to referrals will have three
options available for the review through the grievance procedure.
-2-
1. Request a full written explanation
2. Request an oral review
3. Request.a formal written review
Any person with the right of review may request a full written
explanation of the City's determinations if you believe the refer-
rals made were inadequate. This will be completed by the City
within fifteen days of receipt of your request.
Regardless of whether you have requested a full written explanation
or plan to request the formal written review, you may make an oral
presentation to the City Manager of the City of Richfield or his
representative. In no case will the person hearing your presenta-
tion be the one who made the initial referrals; and the person must
have the authority to review the City's initial determination that
the referrals were adequate. In addition, as previously stated,
you have the right to be represented by a person of your own choos-
ing at your own expense.
Your oral presentation will be held within fifteen days of your
request. Regardless of whether the City changes it original deter-
mination, it will write a summary of the matters discussed, which
will, then be included as part of your file. The oral presentation
gives you the opportunity to informally discuss your grievance with
City personnel who have the power to change the initial decision.
The "Nitty Gritty"
Your third option when an adverse determination has been made is to
request a formal written review. This must be done within the time
limits first stated. If, however, you have previously requested
-3-
either a full written explanation or an oral presentation or both,
and the time limit has expired, you are guaranteed thirty days
from the receipt of the explanation or from your presentation,
whichever is later, to file a written request for review.
Your written request for review may include any statement of fact
within your knowledge or belief, and any other material that you
believe has a bearing on your appeal. If you ask for more time
to gather or prepare additional material and can show a need for
more time, you may be granted an additional thirty days from the
date of your request for preparation. Finally, if you believe that
you cannot prepare a written complaint, the city must provide you
with assistance and notify you of other available sources of help.
The review of your written data will be made by either the City
Manager of the City of Richfield or his designee. once again, if
a representative is named, it must be someone who did not make the
initial determination and who can revise the decision. Upon agree-
ment by both you and the City, a mutually acceptable third party
or parties may review your complaintand make ari advisory recommenda-
tion to the City Manager of the City of Richfield for his final
determination. The agreement may also then provide for extension
of the time limit for City review, which otherwise must be completed
within fifteen days of receipt of the last material you submitted
for consideration.
The City Manager of the City of Richfield or his designee will
reconsider your complaint in light of the following:
1. All material on which the original determination was based,
including applicable rules and regulations;
-4-
2. The reasons given by you for requesting the review and
reconsideration of your complaint;
3. Whatever additional material you have submitted;
4. Any further information that the City may, at its dis-
cretion, obtain by request, investigation, or research,
to insure full and fair review of the complaint to both
parties;
5. The third -party recommendation, if applicable.
The final determination shall at a minimum include the City's
decision on reconsideration of the referrals, and the factual and
legal basis upon which the decision is based. This includes any
pertinent explanation or rationale. Finally, the statement will
explain your right to further review and the process to follow.
Request For Hud Review
If the money used to acquire the property you owned and /or rented
was provided by the Federal government, the City's final determina-
tion is subject to review by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The request for Hud redetermination must be made
within ten days after receiving the City's review to the HUD area
office in Minneapolis in writing, with a copy sent to the City.
Upon receipt of this request, the City will send its file to HUD
within five days and the federal department then has fifteen days
to make its findings. It will consider the same type of information
as the City did in its review and HUD will include the same types
of information in its written opinion as the City must in its written
final determination.
You should include with the written request to the HUD area office any
-5-
� � 1
facts, beliefs, or other material which you believe has a direct
bearing on your request. However, you do not need to resubmit
any such information already given to the City as this will be
included in their file to the HUD area office.
Are You On Time?
If you do not file your request for review within the stated time
limits or your complaint is dismissed for some other reasons not
related to the merits of your claim, the City will issue a state-
ment to you as to the reasons for the dismissal. So don't forget
to be on time!
The End
Don't forget, if you still believe you were unfairly denied referrals
to adequate housing after completion of the grievance process, you
still have the right to judicial review by the courts. The Housing
and Redevelopment Specialist and the City of Richfield sincerely
hope you are not forced to this alternative. They will make every
effort to be fair and allot you all you are eligible to by law.
They will try not to be unreasonable and hope you will make the
same efforts.
-6-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Council Letter No. 349
Agenda November 28, 19 7 7
Subject: Hearing Dates for Renewal of On -Sale Liquor License
The municipal code requires that the city council set the date for a
hearing on applications for renewal of on -sale liquor licenses. Notice of
any hearing dates must be published in the official newspaper at least ten
days in advance of such a hearing.
It is recommended that the hearings be scheduled for the December
12, 1977 city council meeting to consider the renewal of on -sale liquor
licenses for the Godfather, Inc. and for the Left Guard Corporation, d.b.a.
Maximillan's and Chi Chis .
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /eja
cc: Finance Director
Public Safety Director
9