Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.a. S.O.A.R. / Airport Planning Process UpdateCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL -MEETING -DA E October 6, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Airport Planning Process Update AGENDA SECTION: Department Heads Report PREPARED BY: Stephan Jilk, City Administrator AGENDA N`M 11 3A ATTACM4ENTS: Mayors Comments - Public Hearing APPROVED BY.- Y:Regional Regional& Community Impact Study Work Program Newspaper Articles) G This item will allow for the monthly update by SOAR representatives and council discussion on the Airport Planning process. I will provide comments on the attached "Regional and Community Impact Study Work Program. Attached are copies of that draft Work Program along with a letter sent to all referenced cities and townships as a follow up to the Public Hearing on the Decision Document which contains Mayor McMenomy's comments at the public hearing and SO 's written comments on the Draft of the Decision Document. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. COUNCIL ACTION: PHONE (612) 423-4411 FAX (612) 423.5203 September 25, 199: Babe Kuchera, May City of Farmingto 112 Elm Street Farmington, Minne Dear Mayor Kuche i dZa Of �cf? OS61'120LLY1t 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota Mailing Address: P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510 r ota 55068 MAYOR Edward B. McMenomy COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Klassen James (Red) Staats Harry Willcox Dennis Wipperrnann ADMINISTRATOR Stephan Jilk On Tuesday evening, September 22, 1992, the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission co -hosted a public hearing to consider comments on the Decision Document for air transportation planning. We had provided'a copy of that document in our last letter to you. At that meeting R( to the hearing re Process. The SOF on the document. your consideratio support the comme comments to the M end of the public If these comments make other commen Metropolitan Coun would appreciate Thank you. 3emount City Mayor McMenomy provided a statement ord on the document and the Dual Track Planning organization also provided extensive comments We are providing copies of both documents for Please review them and if your City wishes to ts.made in them please do so by sending written tropolitan Council by October 7th, which is the comment period on the document. are not supportable by your City but you wish to :s please do so. If you provide comments to the ail on the decision document the City of Rosemount receiving copies of those comments for our files. Sincerely, Sheila Klassen Councilmember City of Rosemount erylAing's (Poming (Up gosemounlY :aren Mogen, Mayor Richard Childs, Chair :ity of Coates Castle Rock Township _5679 CLAYTON AVE 2537 240TH ST W ZOSEMOUNT MN 55068 FARMINGTON MN 55024 3abe Kuchera, Mayor :ity of Farmington L12 ELM ST ARMINGTON MN 55024 Michael D. Werner, Mayor city of Hastings 2025 HIGHLAND DR HASTINGS MN 55033 Duane R. Zaun, Mayor City of Lakeville 9586 202ND ST W LAKEVILLE MN 55044 Elmer 0. Kiekow, Mayor City of Vermillion VERMILLION MN 55085 Mayor Kiekow Eugene Rotty, Chair Vermillion Township 8720 160TH ST E HASTINGS MN 55033 Roger Fox, Chair Marshan Township 16950 NICOLAI AVE HASTINGS MN 55033 Robert Rotty, Chair Nininger Township 7918' . 150TH ST E HASTINGS 'MN 55033 Gerald Stelzel, Chair Empire Township 18875 CHIPPENDALE AVE W FARMINGTON MN 55024 Henry Peine, Jr., Chair Douglas Township 24150 JOAN AVE HAMPTON MN 55031 New Trier Mayor Al Nauer 24070 Hogan Ave Hampton, MN 55031 Mayor Dale Illa 14460 240th St Cannon Falls, NN 55009 Remarks by Mayor E.B. McMenomy Mayor of Rosemount Metropolitan Council Public Hearing on Airport Planning Decision Document September 22, 199 Rosemount High School Thank you for providing the opportunity for me to speak to you tonight as a representative of the citizens of Rosemount and the Rosemount City Council. The document that you are taking public input on tonight will be used to make decisions which will affect many lives in my community, the metropolitan area, the region and ultimately the majority of the p ople in the State of Minnesota. If public input on the document is taken and considered and ultimately if the document and the decisions that are made using the document as a guideline, those ecisions could have a positive and lasting effect on the residents of Rosemount, the region and the state. If the document is accepted the way it is and the Metropolitan Council proceeds to utilize the document to mislead the people of this -community, Dakota County and the region into believing that this document will serve as "the" decision making document for air transportation planning in the state for the next 30 years as it is suppose to do, then it would be disastrous. To support these concerns"I would like to suggest the following comments be taken into considerate n on the document. First, this is not a decision making document for "air transportation planning for the region or the State; it is simply a tool for trying to decide if a new airport should be built in Dakota County. The entire document talks about "dual track" and a new airport, and the search area versus the existing airport. Since when did the Minnesota State legislature decide that this was a one airport state? Since when did the Metropolitan Council receive a mandate that was directed at the MSP airport only? According to the AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT, referenced in the information sent out for this meeting, it would seem as though the responsibility was to look at airport planning for the Metropolitan Area. Why has this become a process to justify a new airport? We see this document lacking in many areas but the inference is clear - it is being used to locate, design, and justify the building of a new airport. Let's be honest about that and tell the people of this state that is what you're doing. If this was not true then why aren't alternatives such as enlarging the Rochester airport, depending more on the reliever airports such as St. Paul, Airlake, Anoka County, Flying Cloud or a no build scenario looked at all or as seriously as a new airport? 2 We believe that these alternatives must be considered in this process and thus should be recognized as key elements in the decision making rocess as outlined in the "dual track Airport planning process summary. In 1995 or 1996 when a report goes to the legislature on quote "long term aviation strategy for the Twin Cities", how will these elements be considered? This will be a one issue report -- build in Dakota County or don't. Is that what you are supposed to be looking at? In addition to looking at alternatives to a Dakota County airport and insuring that other options are included in the decision making process we woul also suggest that other key elements of the process have been left out of the decision summary. They are: the report from the Environmental Quality Board, the report from the FAA on the capacity at MSP and the results of the Biological Survey being conducted for Dakota County. Unless the planning process reflects these k y reports and the timeline is adjusted to reflect the opportunities to utilize the data that will be coming out then the process lack credibility and becomes less than useless. Which, right -now seems to be the case. The City of Rosemount has gone on record asking the Metropolitan Council to speed this process up. The rule making and land use implications of the potential development of an airport in Dakota County has put �esidents, families, farmers, business owners all 3 in limbo. This planning process has been allowed to proceed unchecked. Their is one goal in mind and everyone knows it. That is, how do we justify the moving of the MSP airport to Dakota County. We have said, hurry the process up, don't keep us in limbo. Let's follow the process and let the process be open and keep us informed. Let us comment and revise the process accordingly. But, we continually lose faith in that process. You are not listening. You are not caring what we say. You are just merrily rolling along drafting documents that meet the needs of the staff and council to get the "right" decision made, not the decision that may be "right". If this process needs to take twenty years to do it correctly, to do it with public and private input that is actually utilized in framing the final recommendation then so be it. As long as the process continues let's talk about the decision factors you have proposed. The City of Rosemount takes the position that decision factors listed are fairly complete in the areas that are covered. But a few comments on.them if you would. On page 5 - you have presented the idea of a "scorecard" in order that most, if not all of the decision elements can be reduced to a numbers game. You are suggesting that in the end this will really be just a matter of cost benefit analysis. if an option has a higher or lower score than the other then it will be chosen. Sounds good. I wish it were that simple. And, maybe it is. But, 4 can we realistically put a number on removing 15,000 acres of prime agricultural land from production. Can you put a number on the dislocation of hundreds of family farms. Can you set here tonight and tell me who will be deciding if the loss of a way of life for southern Dakota County has a lesser value than the noise problems in south Minneap lis? How do you reduce that to a numerical value. I suggest that you better make sure that a system is in place to prove the numerical value of that so that when the legislature is asked to judge which one has a higher priority we are not simply talking -about how many votes there are in south Minneapolis versus how many votes are there are in Southern Dakota County but where is the best location for an airport. Noise,. as we were told at the beginning of this process, was not really the issue and certainly would not be the determining factor in moving the airport. We don't believe for a minute that it is not the driving factor in this whole process. Recent events and comments made b Minneapolis public officials and Metropolitan Airports Commission members in response to Northwests violation of noise restrictions bear this out. So now what are doing trading fewer. complaintE in Dakota County for the many complaints in Hennepin County. Are you prepared to begin noise abatement programs in Dakota County now for homes that could be affected in the future? Are you prepared to cause changes in building codes to require noise abatement to be done in homes to be built in the areas which "co ld be" affected by future airport noise? Where 5 will the funds come from to do that? The document talks about the "vision of the region". We understand that the Metropolitan Council is going through a visioning process for the future. This visioning process will be used to set the stage for key elements in the development of the metropolitan area. Whose vision will that be? I would beg to suggest that it will not be Rosemounts vision. Are we to assume that the Metropolitan Council will then use that visioning process to determine very clearly where in the region certain key facilities like the airport will be located? If that -is true then why even go through this process. Why not reduce this to just another "Met Council" decision and go on with it. Don't hide behind seven years of public hearings and millions of dollars of consulting fees, years of anguish on behalf of residents just to justify it. Just do it. And if the Metropolitan Council is finally going to take such a lead in the development of the region then it had better take the responsibility, both politically and financially for the decisions it is making. Are you enabling or managing? If your managing then step up to the reality of time, energy, costs and ramifications of your decisions. If a new airport is built will the Metropolitan Airports Commission own the development rights around the airport? If so, how will development be controlled? Who will share in new development if it occurs? Who will pay the cost of this entire planning process incurred by cities and Townships. We have been waiting four years for this answer and we have not received one. 6 Who will reimburse these cities and townships for the additional costs for development because the airport is built. Who will pay the cities and townships for development that won't occur because of land use regulations established throughout this process and as land banking and airport development occurs? This document does not indicate who will orif someone will. It simply seems to be another attempt in making the people think they will have an effect on this process when everyone who has been close to the process, unless they were: an insider, believes that the decision has already been made. If you go t`o the legislature in 1995 or 1996 without answers to these questions you will have failed and failed miserably. Since its beginning this process has been flawed. Since the beginning public input has been given but not listened to. Since the beginning the public has not believed in you but the votes in South Minneapolis have pushed this process along. This is a numbers game. Let's at east make it credible one. In order to make this a credible process every decision factor that you have proposed must be weighed for every possible option available to you. That is if Rochester expansion is considered, and it should be, then look at surface transportation, look at economic development, or the lack of economic development, or zero growth because a new airport would simply move business away from existing locations to anew location.. look at shifts in population, 7 look at schools, look at noise, look at environmental issues such air quality, ground water but look at them for not just the new sight, or sights but look at how the decision will effect the rest of the state. What will happen in St. Cloud if the airport is moved to Rochester, or Southern Dakota County. And when you have those effects quantified then ask the legislature if that is their "vision" for the state of Minnesota. One of the things that has not been done, to my knowledge, is that when issues have_ been raised at these meetings that they be responded to. Each and every one. I would ask that not only should all of the comments received tonight be part of the public record, which I 'm sure they will be, but I would also ask that they be responded to as part of the record. Thank You 8 ",AN DU Submitted in written METROPOLITAN 6040 - 28th Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55, METROPOLITAN Mears Park Centre, 612 291-6359 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT OF )UTLINE OF A DECISION DOCUMENT FOR THE TRACK MAJOR AIRPORT* STATEGY" prepared and submitted by SOAR (Stop Our Airport Relocation) P.O. Box 82, Rosemount, MN 55068 September 22, 1992 and oral testimony before: 50 RTS COMMISSION RII UNCIL E Fifth St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Regarding Metropoli Council Publication No. 559-92-044 (reprinted in en irety with SOAR comments in bold) Preface I. DUAL II. CHOO: III. DECISIO CONTENTS ACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS i AN AVIATION STRATEGY FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA DOCUMENT Outline of Decision Document Decision Factors & Data and Analysis Decision Factor: Investment Assessment Decision Factor. Air Service Quality Decision Factor: Regional Economic Impacts Decision Factor: Regional and Community Impacts Decision Factor: Environmental Effects Decision Factor: Financial Issues Regional Strategic Concerns 1 Preface This public hearing draft document suggests the outline for a joint final airport planning and development report ("DECISION DOCUMENT") of Metropolitan Council (Council) and Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to the Minnesota Legislature on the "dual -track" major airport planning process in 1995 or 1996. The DECISION DOCUMENT report is required by state law (MS473.618 Airport Planning and Development Report): 0 t "WITHIN 180 DAYS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ACTIONS REQUIRED BY SECT70N 473.616, SUBDIVISION 3, THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION SHALL REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE ON THE LONG RANGE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR AIRPORT FACILITIES 1N THE METROPOLITAN AREA. THE REPORT MUST INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AGENCIES ON MAJOR AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA FOR A PROSPECTIVE 30 -YEAR PERIOD AND ON ACQUIRING A SITE FOR A MAJOR NEW AIRPORT. THE REPORT MUST INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF A NEW AIRPORT ON PRESENT AND PROPOSED FACILITIES AT THE EXISTING AIRPORT AND ON THE LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE ECONOMIES. THE REPORT MUST CONTAIN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AGENCIES ON FINANCIAL PLANNING AND FINANCING FOR A MAJOR NEW AIRPORT, INCLUDING: COST,• COST ALLOCATION, • AMORTIZ47YON OF MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE EXIS7TVG AIRPORT BEFORE A TRANSFER OF OPERA770NS,• FINANCING METHODS AND SOURCES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS, • LEASE AGREEMENTS AND USER CHARGES AT A NEW AIRPORT, • AND A METHOD OF CAPTURING FOR PUBLIC USES A PORTION OF THE REVENUE FROM DEVELOPMENT AROUND A NEW AIRPORT. " The DECISION DOCUMENT will recommend a lona term aviation strategy for the Twin Cities, and lay out the key data and analysis and reasons for the recommendations. This public hearing draft document fulfills two purposes for the Council and MAC: • The first is to identify the questions and key issues that will need to be addressed in the Decision Document so the research and studies undertaken during the next phase of the dual -track planning process yield information helpful in making the key recommendations in the DECISION DOCUMENT. • The second purpose is to make sure that all the key factors in recommending a strategy are, in fact, addressed and all relevant information is summarized and extracted in one document for public review and debate. This outline identifies and deseribes seven important factors. People are encouraged to review them and suggest others. 2 - It is SOAR's and sufficient to Legisla and their respecti, requested informati to the successful o model utilized in 1 Dual Track Planni sanding that the Public Hearing Draft was not distributed s and Legislative staff, state municipal and county officials associations, or to area community leaders who have from the Metropolitan Council. Their involvement is vital )letion of the Dual Track Planning Process. Perhaps the Metro 2015 outreach process should be employed in the Process. - SOAR believes that the MAC/Met Council must do more than merely publish the Draft and make it available at a limited number of locations; comments, and participation in the process, must be more actively sought by those who are "in charge of" the process. THEREFORE, SOAR is petitioning for a minimum of two additional hearings to take place prior to final approval of this Draft Document: one to be scheduled at the pleasure of the Legislative leadership for members and staff; and.. the other to convene interested municipal and county officials from for the purposes of a detailed briefing about the Draft Document - While cumene. While the legislature evidently intended for the aforementioned list of issues to be included in the final report, it would seem that there is nothing prohibiting the agencies involved from exploring far-reaching options beyond the mandated requirements. MS 473.616 uses the word "major" in referencing aviation developme is into the next Century. This includes consideration of capacity improvements at MSP, not "modest" as is used later in the Draft Decision Document text. Furthermore, the agencies have received testimony that the citizens wish to see data analyzing the human and community impacts of a new airport facili y. This section should include communities displaced by the airport as well as contiguous communities essentially assuming the role now played by south Minneapolis and other noise -affected areas. It would be hoped that the Metropolitan Council would include those data pertaining to projections of growth in Dakota County and use those figures for estimates on mitigation, both -short and log term. The two purposes of the draft document indicate the motivation for SOAR to testify for more ormation: * It would among the most i and therefore wa the Legislative st, delay to the appy, Council staffs prc ppear by the fust purpose outlined that this document is )octant to be issued under the Dual Track Planning Process, ats additional time for study, discussion and reflection by s and members. Therefore SOAR is officially requesting a al of the draft document, and requesting that MAC and Met 3e official briefing sessions for Legislators and local officials. * The second purpose outlined requests that people review and suggest changes to this document. SOAR trusts that this is a genuine request and will not result in the same judgments passed during Site Selection that nothing was worthy of inclusion in the final report. For example, MS 473.616 uses the word "major" in referencing consideration of aviation developments into the next Century. Will the agencies include SOAR's testimony that this Draft Document departs from legislative intent by considering only "modest" capacity improvements to MSP? SOAR believes legislative intent was for creativity, not to limit the planning process. Why isn't there any mention of the 4-22 extension as a reasonable improvement to MSP that would accomodate international travel better than existing facilities and enhance capacity? DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS Under the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act Of 1989 (MS 473.155 and 473.616-619), the Metropolitan Council (Council) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) are required to make recommendations to the legislature about how to meet the long-term aviation needs of the Twin Cities Area. A six-year time frame was established to complete the dual -track airport planning effort. The tracks are on a parallel timeline. Under one track, the MAC was to prepare a plan for the possible expansion of Minneapolis -St. Paul (MSP) International Airport. A concept plan, MSP long Term Comprehensive Plan, was adopted by the MAC in November 1991. Under the second track, the Council was to designate a "search area" for a possible replacement airport. A search area in east -central Dakota County was selected by the Council in December 1991. The next steps in the planning involves environmental, economic, community impact and other studies for both tracks (see Figure 1). An update of the MSP long Term Comprehensive Plan is expected to be completed in 1994. In 1994 the MAC will have selected a site within the much larger search area for a new airport and will have a development plan for a new airport. The MAC will lead the new airport planning effort, though the Council will conduct some of the land use and economic impact studies. In addition, by the end of 1992 the Council must prepare a plan for how MSP can be re -used if a replacement airport is constructed. The overall purpose of the dual -track approach is to conduct studies that will give the region -- and the Minnesota Legislature -- information to compare the option of expanding the current airport with the option of building a new airport in a new location. The major planning activities for 1992 to 1995/1996 period are shown in Figure 1. /E In addition, the Council, the MAC and a 15 -member Contingency Planning Committee are annually monitoring trends in the growth in airport passengers and freight travel, the economy of the re 'on, and changes in the airline industry, among others, to see if the trends mean changes should be made to the dual -track approach. The annual monitoring will also give the region the best and most current information on which to base the decisions which will be made in 1995 or 1996. R In the fifth paragraph of this section, only two options are discussed: expanding the existing airport or building a new one. SOAR is concerned that the "no build" option been omitted. Why is there no mention of other alternatives that have been discussed, such as a "bullet train" between Rochester and the current airport site? - The sixth paragraph indicates that the Met Council, the MAC and the Contingency Planning Committee are "annually monitoring trends" to see whether "changes should be made to the dual -track approach" and to "give the region ... current information on which to base the decisions" regarding airport options. SOAR believes that the general public is not be aware of the extent to which these three groups overlap. SOAR does not believe that these groups are monitoring trends d gathering information independently and objectively. They are primarily circulating information between or among themselves and supporting each other's recommendations and conclusions. - The sixth para ph indicates that the final decisions will be made "in 1995 or 1996" -- well, w 'ch is it? It is SOAR's understanding that the original enabling legislation indicated that the decision was to be made in 1996, in part to allow enough time for the necessary studies, surveys, analyses, etc. By indicating that the decision may be made as early as 1995, SOAR believes that the MAC and the Met Council are usurping the Legislature's authority by unilaterally changing the legislatively -mandated timetable. 5 CHOOSING AN AVIATION STRATEGY FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA By 1996, the Minnesota State Legislature will select a long-term aviation strategy for the Twin Cities Area and for the state. The MAC and Council are following an accelerated planning schedule which will result in a final report for legislative consideration in 1995. This ambitious schedule represents a goal of the agencies to address concerns raised because of the uncertaint,, that exists for persons potentially impacted by the development of MSP or a new airport. Overall, the legislature and the citizens of the Twin Cities and the state, need to be in a position to respond to two questions: • First, will the region need to make significant investment for additional runway(s) and terminal capacity (concourses, gates) during the next 25-30 years (2020) or can the region meet expected demand for air service with only modest investments and improvements to facilities at MSP? • Second, if significant investment and additional capacity is needed, where should the region make those investments -- at MSP or at a new commercial airport in Dakota County? The MAC and Council 1989 forecasts show that demand will probably outpace existing capacity by early in the next century . requiring significant investment for capacity improvements. The long term forecasts for 2020 will be updated in 1993 and used to determine facility requirements. These facility requirements will be the basis for comparable master plans for both MSP and potential new airport. The decisions on where and how best to meet future air transportation demand in the region will take into account how each option will provide air service in terms of physical facilities, operational efficiency and flexibility, and safety. In addition, the comparison of the options will need to include cost, economic, community, regional development and environmental impacts. The Decision Document should extract the information and analysis of the dual -track studies in a manner so that the differences, similarities and contrasts between the potential public policy options can be more readily seen and highlighted. To date seven factors have been identified in the 1991 annual contingency planning assessment report as important for making choices among the options - - expand MSP, build a new airport, and do nothing. These factors are as follows: • Investment Assessment • Air Service Quality • Regional' Economic Impacts • Regional and Community Impacts • Environmental Effects • Financial Issues • Regional Strategic Concerns CI The information in the (Figure 2 in original r graded for a series of write-up for each topic this time the focus she some should be elimin be done concerning tY dual -track studies are ones dropped. The foc highlighting those toy decision. Are any imp DECISION DOCUMENT will be organized like a scorecard ;port -- not offered here). Each option will be evaluated and analysis topics for each of the factors. There will be a concise and an overall summary for each topic by policy option. At uld be on whether or not more factors should be added or if ited and combined with others. A similar critique should also analysis topics. It should be expected, however, that as the =pleted additional analysis topics may be added and existing Ls should be on making an evaluation of the policy options and .cs and factors that will help move the public debate to a >rtant areas missing? An open question at this time is how the comparison will be made. Should an overall average be the yardsti k? Should some factors be weighted more highly than others? SOAR COMMENTS ON FIGURE I (Original Rcport) FLOW CHART -"DU -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS SUMMARY" • SOAR requests that the flow, chart be revised to include references to the FAA capacity study and the DNR biological survey. There seems to be some uncertainty regarding the current status of each, and the projected completion dates, which could be clarified by putting them on the flow chart in their proper places. SO asks that explicit consideration be given to whether other phases of the overall dual -track process should be delayed of deferred until the results of the FAA study and the DNR survey are available. • SOAR also asks that the flow chart be revised to include appropriate references to the points at which the EQB will render "adequacy" reports or opinions on the environmental review process. - SOAR requests c completion date. aggressively for the would prefer that decision. ;arification as to how 1995 was determined as the general The Draft Document indicates that the process is moving benefit of individuals affected by the decision. Yet SOAR the agencies proceed with due diligence toward a sound 7 TEXT FOR FIGURE 2 -- SCORECARD DRAFT SCORECARD FOR EVALUATING DUAL -TRACK POLICY OPTIONS DECISION FACTORS INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT Net Capacity Cost Effectiveness Costs/Benefits Risk of Low Return Social Cost/Benefit AIR SERVICE Level of Service Fares Hubbing International System Integration ECONOMIC IMPACTS Short Term Long Term Improved Economic Structure REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS Airport Environs Infrastructure Implications Accessibility ENVIRONMENTAL Natural Noise/Overflight Indirect (air quality, etc.) Ability to Mitigate FINANCIAL ISSUES Feasibility Effect on Regional Finance Effect on Airlines Effect- on Region STRATEGIC CONCERNS Technical Flexibility Economic Flexibility Vision of the Region Technology Political/InstitutionaI IN The scorecard above aviation options and t one like it, serves twc informed decision. Mu( social costibenefit anal, that are especially imp dollar figure on for it A proposed outline f summary will highlig Council and the MA airport planning pro summarize data and underlying assumptic summarize the data organized under the by the data and ai findings, conclusions Part I Part II DU Part III DU AN Part IV Part V Part VI CON THE SCORECARD ummarizes the kind of information needed to evaluate the select the most suitable aviation strategy. This scorecard, or purposes. It helps explicitly identify the data needed for an 7 of this data can be distilled into one summary statistic in the ,is. However, the scorecard can also help evaluate single factors rtant and/or consider factors that may be impossible to put a ;lusion in the summary cost/benefit analysis. DECISION DOCUMENT the Decision Document is shown in the Figure 3. The executive the major findings, conclusions and recommendations of the The second section will summarize the dual -track metropolitan ;s from 1989 to 1995/1996. The third and largest section will 3lysis. The long-term forecasts of aviation activity and the major will begin this section. The remaining part of this section will d analysis of the dual track studies. This information will be Jen decision factors. An initial set of questions to be addressed ysis is discussed below. The final three sections will include nd recommendations. AL -TRACK DECISION DOCUMENT ;JTIVE SUMMARY: Major Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING -- SUMMARY OF DATA & YSIS A. Longi Range Forecasts of Aviation Activity B. Decision Factors & Data and Analysis • Investment Assessment • Air -Service Quality • Regional Economic Impacts • Regional and Community Impacts • Environmental Effects • Financial Issues • Regional Strategic Concern C. Decision Scorecard INGS '.LUSIONS )MMENDATIONS TO THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE SOAR OMM NTS ON PART IT- "CHOOSING AN AVIATION STRATEGY FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA" • With respect to the reference to the fact that the MAC and the Met Council "are following an accelerated planning schedule" to generate a report in 1995, and that they are doing so "to address concerns raised" by "persons potentially impacted" by the final decision -- who asked them to speed things up? The Legislature hasn't. SOAR hasn't. "Persons potentially impacted" have not, at least to our knowledge. • SOAR would prefer that enough time be taken to do the job right — wait for the data to be collected, interpreted, disseminated and discussed before any decisions are made. SOAR believes that only those who are predisposed to relocating the airport are interested in rushing to a final conclusion. • SOAR believes that paragraph two of this section implies that it should not be necessary to even CD-Uslder relocating the airport if the region can meet expected air service demands with "modest" (as opposed to "significant") investments -and improvements at MSP. If so, shouldn't some effort be made to define "modest" and "significant for purposes of this type of analysis? More importantly, how valid is it to assume that if "significant" investment will be required, it is automatically necessary to consider whether that investment should be made at MSP or at a new site? Is it possible that the cmiging evidence (if objectively analyzed) is strong enough to lead inescapably to the conclusion that "significant" investment (if required) should Dju]y be made at MSP? • Paragraph three refers to the "MAC and Council 1989 forecasts" of inadequate capacity at MSP "by early in the next century". Isn't it generally agreed that those forecasts are now suspect, at best? SOAR requests that this section include a specific reference to the FAA capacity study that is currently in progress, in order to make certain that the FAA's conclusions or recommendations are included in the final decision document_ • SOAR believes that the initial seven decision factors overlap to some extent, and that if possible, some of them should be combined or otherwise "refined" to clarify the research objectives and avoid duplication of efforts. Paragraph six includes a reference to helping "move the public debate to a decision." HW there been a (genuine) public debate about whether the airport should be moved? Or has a small but vocal and well-connected group been advocating that option in its own self-interest, without regard to economic feasibility or the best interests of the other citizens of the region (or of the rest of the state, for that matter)? Should one of the duties of the Met Council/MAC be to "move public debate," in any direction, or at all? Shouldn't they simply gather data, or hire other (objective) parties to do so, and then distribute the collected information to the public and to those who will make the final decisions? 10 - The last paragraph in this section asks whether "an overall average (should) be the yardstick." Average OF WHAT? Isn't it a given that many of the "analysis topics" simply cannot be quantified? If numbers or ratings cannot be assigned to them, how can averages be determined? Also, this paragraph asks whether some factors should be weighted more highly than others. The answer is obvious. Econo c feasibility should be given the greatest weight and, at least initially, the most attention. If we cannot reasonably afford a new airport, we should not even be considering it as an option. If it .is determined to be economic feasible, projections regarding air traffic volumes and capacity at MSP should be given the next greatest weight. Even if we could afford a new airport, we should not consider building it if we don't really need it. Environmental issues should be given the next priority. Even if we need a new airport, and can afford it, we should not build it if the adverse environmental consequences would be too great. "DRAFT SCO - SOAR questions for an informed d social cost/benefit ; simply does not len how would one go that may be gathe - SOAR believes th factors oversimplifil substantial different obtained and stud crunching" will ulti determine the tour, - SOAR believes f concept of a "scor earliest possible staff two categories: thos analysis, and those should be reported tables, or in any o understandable. Ti be reported primar subjective nature o FOR EVALUATING DUAL -TRACK POLICY OPTIONS" Le validity of the statement that much of the data needed ision "can be distilled into one summary statistic in the alysis." Much of the information relevant to the decision itself to quantification or statistical analysis. For example, .bout assigning a number or a ranking to any information d for the "Vision of the Region" analysis topic? the use of a one page "scorecard" for all of the decision the complexity of the required analysis, disregards the between or among the ly= of information that must be 1, and incorrectly implies that sophisticated "number .tely result in a "score" for each airport option that will of action that must be taken. at the public would be better served by abandoning the card" approach. Common sense should be used, at the of the analysis process, to separate the relevant issues into that can reasonably be subjected to numerical or statistical .hat cannot. The accumulated data from the fust category to the public primarily in the form of graphs, charts, or zer form that is not only detailed but also descriptive and accumulated information from the second category should fy in a more narrative fashion, in keeping with the more the category itself. 11 SOAR ON •n"DRAF"r SCORECARD FOR EVALUATING DUAL -TRACK POLICY OPTIONS"• • In short, it should not be assumed that the public or the legislature wants or needs a simplistic "scorecard" to weigh the available airport options. The roles of the MAC and the Metropolitan Council are to collect and report the relevant data and information, not to "distill" it into "one summary statistic." The distillation process should be left for those who will make the final decision (the legislature) and those who will ultimately benefit or suffer from that decision (the public). DECISION FACTOR: INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT The primary policy concern is to have adequate capacity to meet the air transportation needs. The existence of a full range of aviation services is central to the long-term economic and social well-being of the Metropolitan Area. In the planning and development of airport facilities, it is not unusual to have long lead times between project identification and project construction and operation. This situation requires looking out long-term and recognizing the potential risks. The key issues for major airport investment decisions involve how effective and flexible an option is in meeting the future capacity objectives, the relationship between costs and benefits and what the relative risks of making investments too soon or too late. Analysis Topic: Net Capacity • How much capacity and flexibility for expansion in relationship to the forecasted demand does the option protide? • What are the assumptions regarding technology for each option and their impact on net capacity? Analysis Topic: Cost Effectiveness • Does the option pro vide capacity at a reasonable cost per passenger or per flight --that is, is it cost-effective? • What is the cost per operation of each option at different levels of activity/demand? What is the cost in future years If demand and airport use increase? Analysis Topic: Costs/Benefits • Do the benefits of the option justify the costs of the project? 12 Analysis Topic: Risk of Low Return • What is the ris of low return for each option? Is this acceptable or not? • What is the ni of being wrong or having too much or too little capacity?' If Wbat will it cot if the region guesses high or low — what are the financial and economic penal es if there is not enough activity to cover operating costs and debt service and what if there is not enough capacity that leads to unacceptable delays, perhaps even a limit on air traffic? Analysis Topic: • What are the residents? • Do the social • SOAR questions 1 of aviation services of the Metropolitan Joneses" philosoph administrative level. Does it mean that 4 could conceivably b aviation service tha provide each and elsewhere, and if currently in jeoparc ial Cost/Benefits of aircraft noise and traffic on the well being of nearby is and costs of the option justify the costs of the project? conclusory statement that the "existence of a full range > central to the long-term economic and social well-being ►rea." This statement suggests that a "keeping up with the may be driving airport planning decisions at the What does "a full range of aviation services" really mean? r airport must provide every kind of aviation service that desired? Does it mean that our airport must provide any is available at any other airport? Does MSP currently rery aviation service that is either desired or available Dt, is our "long-term economic and social well-being" ? SOAR does not believe so. • In fact, SOAR challenges the MAC, the Metropolitan Council and the general public to at least maside the possibility that preserving our long-term economic and social well-being might require us to decide =1 to provide "a full range" of aviation services There might be little solace in having a full range of aviation services if, in order to make them available and financially feasible, funding for human mryi= has to be significantly reduced. Some metropolitan areas that do not provide as wide a range of aviation services as MSP still presumably manage to enjoy some degree of "economic and social well-being." Bigger is not always better. Sometimes, less is more -- or at least enough. 13 • The "Net Capacity" analysis topic refers to "flexibility for expansion in relationship to the forecasted demand," which implies that demand will invariably or inevitably increase, thereby necessitating expansion. SOAR believes that flexibility for "contraction" or downsizing should receive equal consideration, given the very real possibility that demand may continue to decrease in the face of poor economic conditions, instability in the airline industry, technological advances, and a host of other factors. • Similarly, the "Cost Effectiveness" analysis topic refers to the "cost in future years if demand and airport use increase." For the reasons outlined above, equal consideration should be given to the "cost in future years if demand and airport use • SOAR believes that the "Risk of Low Return" phrase should be abandoned, and that the analysis topic in question should simply be "Risks." Discussions centered upon a possible "low return" incorrectly imply that selecting an airport option is Pfanardy an investment decision, such as whether one should buy Stock A or Stock B. Although the concept of "low return" is certainly useful with respect to conventional investments, it would be very hard to define in the context of airport options, and would be too subjective -- at what point does a "return" become too "low?" • The only "Social Costs" identified under the last analysis topic in this section are "aircraft noise and traffic." An abbreviated list, to be sure. If consideration of societal costs is Indy a part of the "Investment Assessment" process, aU of the potential costs should be referred to here; they will presumably be identified when some of the other decision factors are fully analyzed, such as "Regional and Community Impacts." Aircraft noise and traffic mu be the only social costs of keeping the airport at its present location, but a much wider range of social costs would result from relocating the airport (displacement or loss of homes and businesses, loss of productive farmland, destruction of historic sites, interference with the planned and orderly development of affected communities, impact of "land banking", etc.). 14 ON FACTOR: AIR SERVICE QUALITY How good should the quality of air service be for the Twin Cities Region and the State of Minnesota as provided by the major commercial airport? Aviation goals call for the major airport to provide a high level air service for the residents and businesses in the Twin Cities Area, the state and the upper midwest region it serves. The airport facilities and services should enhance and maintain the Twin Cities as a major hub airport in the nation system, maintain and increase the frequency of service and nonstop access to m jor national and regional markets, promote and facilitate the expansion of direct international service, promote air cargo goods movement to regional, national and international markets. Analysis Topic: Level of Service • What J� thenge of choices available to passengers under each option -- scheduling an cities served by nonstop and direct flights. • How wsll carg� demand be affected by the airport option's capacity, distance from regional business centers or by passenger services? • What impacts will technological advances and substitutions for air travel have? Analysis Topic: Fares • What is the r nge of choices available to passengers under each option -- fare levels? Analysis Topic: Ilubbing • How well wil the options maintain and enhance the Twin Cities area as an airline hub? Analysis Topic: ternational • What is the range of choices available to passengers under each option -- breadth of mteruational service? Analysis Topic: System Integration • • What faciliti and improvements are committed and/or planned at competitive airports (such as Detroit, C&cago, St. Louis, Denver)? • What are the potential changes in the airline industry and what are their likely impacts on the Twin Cities? • What is the current role and what future role could the regional reliever airports play? 15 • With respect to the "System Integration" analysis topic, how likely is it that the MSP site would not be used for =y type of air traffic if a new airport is built? Has any major metropolitan area ever completely abandoned its primary airfield when a "replacement" has been built? Isn't it more likely that MSP would continue to be used for cargo flights, commuter flights, or military traffic -- which could be noisier than conventional passenger planes? Does the "option" of relocating MSP include the relocation of the HHH terminal traffic - - or would that traffic remain at its present location? s With respect to the "regional reliever airports" -- will any consideration be given to making improvements and investments at those locations, thereby increasing their capacity and/or their attractiveness to "customers" in the private sector? If traffic could thereby be diverted away from MSP, wouldn't that increase its capacity and extend its useful life? Wouldn't it also result in economic benefits to the communities in which those reliever airports are located? Could this result in a wider and more equitable distribution of the noise impact? • This Draft Document should outline the MAC's plans to continue improving MSP, including aggressive efforts to complete 4-22. Furthermore, MAC should clearly include the FAA Capacity Study as well as thoughtful consideration of all capacity improvements brought to light through that study. DECISION FACTOR: REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS Air service plays an important role in fostering regional economic prosperity. The aviation industry provides the region with accessibility to and from other parts of the United States and the world. It is a major force in the regional economy. The key economic questions involve what airport investments will do in the short term, over the long-term and how will they affect regional economic growth and development patterns. Analysis Topic: Short Term • How do the options differ in their short-term relocation and employment effects? Do the &f7er In their Jong -term impact on regional borowtb and stability? Analysis Topic: Long Term • Wbat land of cbanges are likely in the level and cbaracter of economic activity fostered by each option for region and state. • Where within the region u&l new businesses be liked to locate under each option? 16 DECISION FACTOR:I REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS -- CONTINUED Analysis Topic: • What kinds employment, • LVho benefits • Overall, low Twin Cities . Economic Structure businesses will be attracted and how will the afl"ect local idential patterns, income, character and quality of life? who is burdened by each option? do these economic changes support the long-term goals of the i and the state? • The final analysis topic under this decision factor addresses the question of whether economic changes resulting from the selection of an airport option "support the long-term goals of the Twin Cities region and the state." SOAR does not know whether any such goals have even been identified or speed, or (if so) who might have done so for us. SOAR considers it unlikely that any type of consensus could exist. The long-term goals of any two or more nearby cities or townships may differ, and their respective goals may not coincide with the Metropolitan Council's goals, and the Met Council's goals may not be the same as the goals of the Governor or the Legislature. Accordingly, any plan to examine each airport option in the context of "long-term goals" should be abandoned or, alternatively, any such plan should take into account any disparities that may exist between the long-term goals of the various townships, towns, cities, counties, "the region," the state, or other affected or interested parties. The Met Council has presented the Metro 2015 document as a future goals document from which the revised Metropolitan Development & Investment Framework will is ue strategies. In order to be consistent and integrate planning for public volvement, all of these three documents must speak openly about the efforts o the other two. 17 DECISION FACTOR: REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS How will the airport options impact people, communities and regional land use and development patterns? Although it may be difficult to attach dollar values to these types of impacts, the influence that airport operations (on-site employment, aircraft operations, passengers, freight, etc.) and related infrastructure (highways, public utilities, etc.) have investment they must be considered in evaluating the options. Analysis Topic: Airport Environs ' • What changes would be set In motion by each option and how would the options al}ect the surrounding community and the region as a whole io terms If land use and development patterns? What are the land -use implications of these effects on various parts of the reggion? What happens to business activity if only modest changes are made at MSP? • How will the provision of air cargo affect future land use patterns, the mix of cargo and passenger demand and, ultimately, air service quality? • What is the current and anticipated use of land adjacent to the airport --agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial? • How will the land area needed for expansion be acquired and who would be affected? a Analysis Topic: Infrastructure Implications • What is the adequacy of the infrastructure for projected land uses. • Will more investment in local transportation infrastructure be needed to satisfy a vjation-stimulated growth? Analysis Topic: Accessibility • What are the travel distances and travel times for the options from various major activity centers m the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and cities r Greater Minnesota? • Why should this topic be limited to the impacts on the "region" (which is presumably the area within the Met Council's jurisdiction) and the"communities" (presumably those in or near the search area)? • The final decision on the airport issue will have state-wide impacts of various kinds, including: • Study possible div rsion of public and private funds that would otherwise be used for infrastructure improvements and general development elsewhere. • Document increased travel time for travellers as well as airport area workers. • List the inevitability of higher taxes throughout the state. • Include the "reuse study" (of the abandoned MSP site) in this section. If not, identify where it should go within the Draft outline. There is no mention of the study at this time, yet the committee appointed by the Met Council has an entire presentation of options. SOAR believes the momentum to re -use MSP's site must stand as an integral part of the Met Council's responsibility and not a stand-alone activity removed from the requirements of economic and environmental analyses. • Under the last "A how "the land area the other analysis required at some po that explicitly ackno make expansion ur rport Environs" analysis topic, a question is posed regarding needed for expansion" will be acquired. As with some of topics, this question presupposes that expansion HM be int. SOAR would prefer a more objective approach -- one wledges the possibility that stable or declining demand might ie .essarv. 19 DECISION FACTOR: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Airport development and operation, whether at the existing airport or at a new site, will involve have environmental impacts which will need to be addressed. These impacts will be both on- and off-site and will effect the natural and man-made environments. What are the type and magnitude of environmental impacts and can identified adverse impacts be mitigated? Analysis Topic: Natural • What and how critical, are the environmental implications of each option? • What is the impact on the natural environment --wildlife, wetlands, river and groundwater quality. How does the community evaluate these ellects? Analysis Topic: Noise/Overflight • What are the noise and overflight effects. How do residents feel about these annoyances? Analysis Topic: Indirect (air quality, etc.) • WX airport -based and induced ground transportation si��candy affect air quality? Analysis Topic: Ability to Mitigate • Is mitigation possible? How much wX It cost? 20 SOAR's Environment Committee testifies that the following improvements should be made to this section: * Include the EQB input and comment dates in the flow chart. * Include the oints in time and reference to outcome of Dakota C unty Biological Survey by the DRN. * Disregard generalization of environmental impacts in chart form- * Include information and research on ground water needs for new airport,water table, availability and impacts to the r 'ning communities. * Include research on sewage treatment facility and what, how and where effluents be discharged- * Include exteisive research and disciission of runoff implications in uding how much additional land would be required to handle storm and melt water peaks as directed by the Soil Conservation Service guidelines. * Include research on all endangered, threatened, and special concern spDcies on both federal and state levels. * Include discussion of impacted and lost micro -climates and habitats which support wilderness and "country living" aspects of Dakota and surrounding counties (include Washington & Goodhue). * Include study of and reference to currently improving environmental conditions within search area. * Include reference to three past conclusions that Dakota County is NOT an appropriate site for an airport. * Insist that environmental clean-up analyses be included in any re -use documents regarding the current MSP site, including what pollutants are of concern, how much the project will cost in funds and time, who will be responsible for the clean- up, and where disposal would occur of both polluted and demolition materials. * The mitigation portion of this report should use the Met Council's own projections for future population growth, which predicts that Lakeville, Rosemount and other south metro cities will be the "boom towns" of tomorrow. • With respect to the "Noise/Overflight" analysis topic, is it really necessary to devote time, attention and money to d termining "how... residents feel about these oyances?" Isn't is self-evident that they are, well, ? Isn't this topic too subjective for "analysis"? .And is the degree of annoyance among a small number of citizens worthy of statewide investment in a new airport? 21 - If noise and overflight effects are objectively studied, consideration should be given to the fact that the search area is in the fastest growing county in the State of Minnesota, and one of the fastest growing counties in the entire country. Would moving the airport therefore have the potential of ultimately subjecting mo people to "noise and overflight effects" than is presently the case, thereby increasing mitigation costs? • There seems to be some uncertainty regarding whether the DNR biological survey will be limited to the actual search area, or whether it will also include all areas within five miles of the perimeter of the search area; this issue should be clarified. DECISION FACTOR: FINANCIAL ISSUES Is financing likely to be a constraint in the ability to generate sufficient funds to implement the desired aviation strategy? The key financial issues need to address basic project feasibility and the ability of the public and the airlines/airport users to cover annual debt and operating costs. Major airport improvements will be staged over time and supported by a combination sources (federal grants, user fees and charges, revenue bonds and general obligation revenue bonds). Analysis Topic: Feasibility • What is the financial feasibility of the options? • What are the costs and cost allocation requirements of the options? • What are the potential financing methods and sources of public and private funds? Analysis Topic: Effect on Regional Finance • What will the financial impact be on the region? • What revenue sources are available to fund each option? • _ What will the effect of airport financing on regional or community bond ratings? • How do the options compare in their impacts on regionablocal government finances? • What method for capturing revenue from development around a new airport could be used for public purposes? What role should fiscal disparities play? Analysis Topic: Effect on Airlines • What will the financial effect be on airlines with each option (lease agreements, user chargers and fees)? Analysis Topic: Effect on the Region • What will be the financial impact on the typical resident of the Twin Cities and the typical business? 22 ANALYSIS TOPIC: Please name the economic model and projections that will be used to determine financial feasibility of the options. Who will personally be responsible for this project and what are their qualifications? The option involving a new airport should include all attendant infrastructure requirements for roads, bridges, people -movers, etc. SOAR wishes to see a complete listing of the required projects in the draft document as well as a preliminary pr 'ection of the bonding authority required to accomplish each. Please list the potential financing methods and sources of public and private funds that will be studied during the next two years. Also outline how each would be achieved and under what timeline. r_ iTAXTr-TAT TCCTTFC __ Cnntinl ANALYSIS TOPIC: Define region. EFFECT ON REGIONAL FINANCE Outline the re enue sources under question: state general taxes; dedicated taxes; TIF districts; general fund shifts, etc. The Met Council should do more than restate MS 473.616: "what method for capturin revenue from development around a new airport could be purposes." Elaborate on what will be studied in terms of used for public p categories and affect communities. The question of employing fiscal disparities should be outlined more thoroughly in this draft stage. There is tremendous interest in what the Council intends to study. ANALYSIS TOPIC# EFFECT ON AIRLINES This is perhaps the preeminent question, and the most neglected of any. The question of competitiveness is completely missing from this document. The voice of the private sector is also missing. We can all assume increases in costs to the air ' This portion of the draft document should outline intentions to compare across hubs -- costs of operation, pragmatic reports of any likelihood that airlines would relocating part or all operations to a cheaper hub location. The agencies must also verify or deny the theory that Minnesota would ever be a candidate for a dual hub airport. In short, the draft document should detail the opportunity cost of the decision of this public sector decision upon aviation ind tries and their support service industries. 23 ANALYSIS TOPIC: EFFECT ON THE REGION In an era of multi-culteralism, widespread economic disparity and varied regional economies, SOAR maintains there is no such a thing as a "typical" resident or "typical" business? SOAR requests that this be stricken from the report and instead that the Met Council apply sophistication to the study of economic impacts upon a multitude of businesses types in a multitude of locations. Furthermore, the financial impact of this airport decision should be revealed earlier under the revenue sections. Other than the potential of short term construction jobs, many of which could well be awarded to out-of-state workers, the Council should indicate now the specific impacts it intends to study on "typical" residents. Jobs in the service sector generally are at low hourly salaries without benefits. What impact would that have upon any Dakota Co. community plans for future growth in other industries? What -about the people who depend upon jobs in the current airport development area? DECISION FACTOR: REGIONAL STRATEGIC CONCERNS No matter how well it appears to satisfy currently estimated needs, the aviation plan will succeed only if it is implemented in a form that satisfies future needs. No one evaluating the options now can predict the future with precision. Circumstances are bound to change. New technology may be introduced, aviation and economic development in general may take a slightly different path, or new socio-political forces may emerge. The flexibility of each option may provide an important hedge against uncertainty. The viability of the aviation strategy may critically depend on its ability to adapt to change and unforeseen events. Financial flexibility fosters greater efficiency and helps keeps costs to a minimum. At the same time, the chosen option must be able to fit in with regional plans and objectives. If the project fits in well with public objectives -- the vision of the region -- or is easily adapted to support those objectives, it is more likely to garner the support needed for successful implementation. There are potential implementation roadblocks facing each option and they may differ because each option affects different populations, interests groups and economic interests, or affects a given interests differently. DECISION FACTOR: REGIONAL STRATEGIC CONCERNS -- CONTINUED Analysis Topic: Technical Flexibility • Can engineering design be altered during the construction phase to fit changed _ circumstances? Is it possible to stage development differently or shift development schedules? • Can the finished airport W aaapreu co ImPutuu « --w -- aviation demand For example, a shift from regional to cargo air service)? Analysis Topic: Economic Flexibility • Can financial anangements can be adapted to changes in financial markets, local debt situations, or cash outflow. Analysis . Topic: Vision of the Region • How well does each option fit into the overall development strategy for the re -Rion as articulated in the Council's policy plans? Analysis Topic: Technology • What technok • How might th of eiisting air Analysis Topic: I What are the ,cal improvements and changes are expected? impact the need for air transportation or improve the capability ,ansportation investments? Plitical/Instituti onal )olitical and institutional issues faced by each option? 25 • With respect to the "Vision of the Region" analysis topic, why is the focus _exclusively on whether each airport option fits into the Met Council's "overall development strategy for the region"? Is this referring to the Met Council's Metro 2015 and MDIF revision process? Does the future of the region increasingly mean a metro focus overriding the nerds of Greater Minnesota? • Shouldn't there be some consideration of whether each airport option fits into the "overall development strategies" of the nearby communities? - A "telecommunications" issue belongs somewhere in this document, and likely under this factor. Local companies (Koch Refinery, Honeywell, etc.) are malting greater use of teleconferencing and other technological innovations in order to reduce the necessity or frequency of airline travel -- this is a national/international trend that may result in significant" reductions in business air travel -- * what other innovations are on the horizon, and how would Ihev affect traffic levels in the airline industry? • Under political and institutional issues, the agencies should elaborate to list the entities and constituencies they intend to study. • Technical flexibility is a new phrase. The Council should be clear about the breakpoints below which a new airport would not stand on its own merits from the beginning. Because economic projections are almost always wrong, Minnesotans should not be suddenly presented with a phased -in project on the notion that "someday" capacity will prove to have justified the expenditure. 'ar':s::•Xx�4'.ccs'...-.^::��•.'.-�ars�',:�..'r. F Star Tribune Tuesday - September 22/1992. _ Read then recycle 1 W. , .r .-.:c M -.AC g -ambftd t By Neal Gendler Writer 'hundreds of residents vented their frustration; _ anguish and rage over !airplane noise Monday night at a -.public meeting in south Mir neapolis. For more than two hours" speaker after speaker at Washburn High School pummeled Metropolitan Air- ports Commission (MAC) Chairman .: Hugh Schilling and MAC Executive Director Jeff Hamiel for wat many -called the agency's unres nsiveness to them and over-responsi eness to esu n earful ■ s not Northwest Airlines. Many also at- tacked Northwest for what they said was arrogance and perfidy in an- nouncing a pian to violate voluntary noise -control limits. "The Northwest decision was bla- tant, unilateral and arrogant." said David Lillehaug, referring to the air- line's announcement this month that it will add 13 flights a day at Minne- apolis -St. Paul International Airport. "It's not a complex issue." he said. His voice rising, he said that North- west is showing lack of corporate noise) responsibility and that Minneapolis should join a suit filed May I9 to force compliance with state noise standards. In words echoed by many he said some people ask why those unhappy with the noise don't move• to which he replied: "We should not have to move because Northwest broke the agreement." The meeting. attended by. about 90-3 people, was intended to hear public sentiment, and after brief opening statements by Schilling Hamiel and Jet noise continued on page 2B Staff Photo by Duane B aley ' David Lillehaug, a board member of the South Metro Airport Action Council, addressed members of the Metropolitan Airports C ommission at a public meeting at Washburn High School Monday night. het noise/ falling home Interrupted conversations, Continued from page 1B }lth Ward City. Council Member Steve Cramer, sentiment poured forth: People`'s ding a half-dozen deep ' at two microphones told how �c='eaming jet engines interrupt con- Yersations and sleep and how home values have sagged - Outside the auditorium, fliers were Passed out by the South Metro Air- port Action Council, which gathered. .signatures on a petition asking Gov. ante Carlson to encourage an ordi- nance on noise and to . direct the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to enforce noise standards. Inside, one speaker called jet noise an illegal "taking of property" akin to someone removing parts of his house; board by board. "I know my house is work a lot less than it would.be if the planes were not going over it," he said. "I.don't want to be held hostage in mv• ow;t house all day," said Bob Stermer. "My 2 -year-old son comes c;}rng to me, 'Its too noisy.' I don't know what to tell him." Hamiel replied that meeting the state noise law would require closing the airport. He explained that he and the commission are committed to a dual - track plan that is exploring options to expand the present airport or replace it with a new one in Dakota County: The -S4 billion decision is to be made in 1996 by the Legislature. "Why the short-sighted effort to stuff a large airport into that little -bitty 1950s plot?" asked Bob Melsness, who said he has flown 40 years as a commercial and military pilot. "Why- the constipation in decision- making at all levels of government?" he asked to great applause. "It vaue.s. among complaints doesn't have to be studied to 1996 it can be made now. Jet aircraft and housing are incomp2tible," he 'said. No military base puts its housing at the end of runways. Schilling and Hamiel were jeered -re-.- peatedly by the boisterous audienm Other times they were interrupted, often to applause. For example, as Hamiel was explaining the need to keep Northwest and its 17,000 jobs in Minnesota, a man shouted "You .don't understand the outrages' The MAC was lambasted repeatedly as a pushover for Northwest, as un- representative because its 15 mem- ber are appointed, and as not cor- recting an ongoing problem. Hamiel was jeered when he said he didn't think of himself as an advocate of Northwest, and again when a man shouted "Do something NOVv!" and he replied, "I think we are." Over and over, people said thev didn't want to move from a city they love and that needs them. "This is by far the most satisfying place in the nation that I know of to live," said Bob Schmitz. But, he said, "Northwest Airlines and its attitude toward the city of Minneapolis is absolutely appalling." Sitting quietly in the audience was Northwest spokesman Jon Austin, who said in an interview that peo- ple's concern was very understand- able and that the airline was con- cerned about the community. "I hope we're not perceived as arro- •gant," Austin said. "We certainly don't want to leave that impression. We try to work with the MAC. We try to be responsive. We've been very open with the MAC and the people." Hamiel, Schilling and Cramer told the audience that if they want a new airport built, they must work hard to convince others. Mary people in the metro area aren't much affected by noise and like the present airport's convenience, they said, while people in Dakota County don't want one. "It's a matter of justice," said Mi- chael '.loorm2nn, who has lived nearby since the days when the air- port handled a modest number of propeller -driven airplanes. "I have a lovely porch," he said, but for five years he's been unable to use it. "I've lost one of the nicest things about my house." The commission is expecting noise levels to rise in September and Octo- ber to an amount that is a 9 percent violation of the limits. At a commission meeting yesterday, Hamiel said that before the co,;,mis- sion takes any action, however, flight levels should be watched for 2 month to determine the exact noise levels registered by Northwest planes. He said that such a wait-and-see ap- proach did not satisfy Minneapoiis officials earlier yesterday when he and the Schilling met with them. Commissioner Joe Gasper, who lives in south Minneapolis, said during yesterday's meeting that he wondered how much the commission could do to control the noise. Lengthy negotia- tions with airlines and air freight companies have been unable to elim- inate five or six noisy flights during late-night hours, he said. "If we can't control those, what chance do we really have to make improvements?" he said. Staff writer Laurie Blake contributed to this report ?AUL PIONEER PRESS F 5A NOISE ' T CONTINUED FROM IA .While the group was 'definitely pro-move,.that was not the prima- ry reason the meeting was called by Minneavolis elected officials. said the purpose of the citizen ral- ly was to. pressure the MAC to do three things: ■ Adopt a mandatory noise ordi- nance by the end of this year. ■ Call a public .hearing to give the public a chance 'to confront'. Northwest Airlines. e Prohibit older noisy airplanes known as stage 2 aircraft from operating in or out of the Twin Cites airport overnight., . •;; All airlines are moving toward a year 2000 federal deadline when their entire fleets must be stage 3' aircraft --_ newer models . with'• much quieter engines.,,,,::,;,' MAC has declined, topass an ordinance. it has. had on the shelf for the past five, years because the voluntary .restraints had worked well until : now.;, And if , the ordi- nance is;passed now, .the Federal Aviation.::;c, Administration. ,, and Northwest Airlines. are : expected to seek legal restraints that would delay; the .matter at -least as long as the.•18 !months that .Northwest has said it will continue to violate the voluntary guidelines. lfamiel `and'' MAC' Chairman Hugh Schilling told the crowd that they and':` other- commissioners were at the meeting mainly to lis- ten to the complaints and con- cerns, not to defend Northwest. "What you say tonight will be an important part of future delib- erations by the Metropolitan Air- ports Commission," IIamiel said. But he drew catcalls when he reminded the audience that North- west violated the voluntary agree- ments as an economymeasuT'e–to survive in an unstable industry. lie pointed out that the airline em- ploys about 18,000 workers in the Twin Cities. That failed to impress some hecklers who shouted suggestions like "Let them go," and "You don't understand our outrage." Aircraft noise has diminished in the five years since the airlines agreed to the voluntary noise level plan. Nevertheless, MAC received more noise complaints this past summer than any previous similar period. And that was before Northwest began disregarding the voluntary standards on Sept. 15. Schilling explained that one rea- son for the paradox was this sum- mer's unusually cool weather. Fewer air conditioners were being used, and more windows were open. Furthermore, "that cool weath- er was ushered in by more north winds, and airplanes have a habit of taking off into the wind," he added, explaining why there were twice as many flights over South Minneapolis this summer than in the summer of 1991. Airplane noise critics de -m ----and i DON AIIERN STAFF WRITER Angry airport neighbors came to pro- The rally test airplane noise Monday night — ready sought to bring to rip Northwest Airlines recent decision pressure: pre to disregard a five-year-old voluntary p e enact a noise reduction plan. mandatory noise But a gathering of about 1,000 people In ordinance. , Minneapolis Washburn high School soon confront ■ became a one-sided forum on relocating Northwest Minneapolis -St. Paul International Air- Airlines. port. ■ To stop older When Metropolitan Airports Commis- noisy airplanes sion executive vice president Jeff IIamiel from operatingi . innocently inquired what the audience overnight. would have the commission do about the ; noisy airport, he got an immediate, thunderous answer: "Move it! Move it!" the crowd roared. That was a follow-up to irreverent applause Ifamiel got earlier when he told the people gathered in the school that the commission is committed to finish a study that includes not only the possibility of expanding the airport where it is, but also of moving it far from South Minneapolis to farm. fields in.Dakota County. "If ever there was a reason to build a new airport, it's in this room," said Minneapolis City Councilman Dennis Schulstad ",.. I can promise you that several legislators will be working very hard this coming session to be sure there is no expansion" of the , existing airport. NOISE CONTINUED ON 5A;► OD F Rochester. gams one. 4SSOCUITED PRESS "it is ROCHESTER airport? The Metropolitan Airports Com- en ` troul. mission is `looking into whether try," Sn Rochester's airport could 'ease. pressure at the Twin Cities air- t—�--- port. The study is just beginning, al- most a year after the Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments recommended it. It will examine using Rochester Municipal Airport as an option to building a second Twin Cities airport or expanding Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. "I'm going to push for this thing all the way," said Jerry Brataas of Rochester, a member of the MAC.. "Rochester has a lot to gain, the MAC has. a lot to gain. and the state has a lot to gain. Proponents say the plan should include high-speed rail, but some question whether the. MAC. is seri- ous about including it. The rail line would be part of a proposed Chicago -to -Minneapolis route. It would enable Rochester's airport to receive some of the air cargo, military and passenger flights that now go to the Twin Cities. That could eliminate the need to build new runways in the metro area. It also would allow quick travel between airports. Nigel Finney, deputy executive director for planning and develop- ment, said the commission will look at the airport issue first, then possibly a rail line, Proponents say the issues need to be considered together.. "They're spending $50,000 -plus to do the study, but they really are not looking at potential concepts," said Ken Buckeye, a rail planner ; for the Minnesota Transportation Department. . "You have to look at how one affects the other," said Gary Smith of the Rochester Area Eco- nomic Development Inc., a major booster of using Rochester's air- port rather than building a new SAINT PAUL PIONEER PRESS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1 metro airport.u ort as 2nd site hp new, airport, the state can't afford Capital Partnerships. The coma feasible to build a new it and theairlines can't afford to Sion must go before - the Legi Yhere in this state, giv- finance a new airport" ture by mid-1996 and recomm in the airline indus- The study is being done by Avia- whether to build a new airpor said. "Nobody wants a tion Planning of Cincinnati and expand existing ones. EDITORIALS Qi AIRPORT NOISE ...Nois-keduction law may be wrong tack The sound night's m Metropolitan A and airport m course, appro] .neighborhoods nightly) by th, of jets leaving neapolis-St. have every r noise of their That meeti derstandable protest of N( crease flights of a forum o major airpor plex issue, bi of the neighl at bottom, t proximity of hub airport. -A new ai solution sev reasonable r tion of airpc to doubt wh nance the n course at th ""tine reas( nd fury at Monday ,,eting between the irports Commission ise critics was, of riate. Residents of shaken daily (and spine -rattling roar and landing at Min- ?aul International eht to make some Federal regulations requiring airlines to complete conversion to quieter aircraft also erect obstacles to g took another un- I added local turn when it was regulation. transformed from a •thwest Airlines' recent decision to in - and noise at the airport into something the issue of relocating the Twin Cities' Airport relocation is a vast and com- at least this discussion gets to the core )rhoods' problem. That problem is not, e latest noise increase, but the simple he neighborhoods to a busy and growing quieter Stag obstacles to w_eJ1beaw Commission a messy, pr one. An ord :;ordinance i: exhausted t Officials cial conditi munity has i .:expand its :;pansion diff *:have to to _ opportune costly mea victims to The fact ;;for any Northwest' perfect in ty, in wo ::creased n ::out regret ; ; any symp notably to weather. this week' Noneth 1 the Airpo with North :; muffle n i ting more Failing the + 1 nnrlin9nf`P )ort, of course, even if feasible, is a -a1 decades in the future. Everything ast be done now to minimize the disrup- t neighbors' lives. But there are reasons her the mandatory noise reduction ordi- ghborhood groups are urging is the best time. for caution is that federal regulations lines to complete their conversion to 3 aircraft by the year 2000 also erect additional local regulation. There may y around those obstacles for the Airports yet this whole matter could well end in longed court fight, which would serve no r permitting a mandatory noise reduction ight be moot by the time the parties eir appeals. ust also consider the precarious finan- n of Northwest and the stake this com- n its survival. To endure, Northwest must flight schedule. If noise issues make ex- icult here, the airline will presumably .to other hubs. Altogether, this is not an ime to inflexibly compel Northwest into ures, however difficult it may be for noise ecogrize this concern. rs, it's becoming more difficult by the day nnesotan to sympathetically consider needs, because of the airline's almost ility to express concern for the communi- or deed. The announcement of the in- ise was characteristically delivered with - without public consultation and without thetic recognition that this has been a sy summer for noise largely because of entler words might not have prevented outrage, but they couldn't have hurt. ess, before proceeding with an ordinance, is Commission should at least negotiate west and other airlines to attempt to again se levels voluntarily, perhaps by commit - Stage 3 aircraft to the Twin Cities sooner. re, the MAC will still have the option of an though it will still be a poor option. M TROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION '_,'t'S 5< ti,e Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport �? t 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis. MN 55450-2799 o Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 Dt t N O N 0 J D t GO 4'mpo RtS TO: Site Selection Study Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director - Planning and Environment RE: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS WORK PROGRAM DATE: September 23, 1992 As requeste at the September 15, 1992 Technical Advisory Committee meeting, a copy of the Work Prog am for Regional/Community Impacts Studies is enclosed for your information and review. Feel free to contact me if you should have any questions. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Relie%er Airports AIRLAKE s ANOKA COUNTY BLAINE o CRYSTAL, s FLYING CLOI'D • LAKE F.L\10 • SAINT p4t't nosy N'"rnu . ELEMENT IVB Task 1: Subtask 1.1 Subtask 1.2 Task 2: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES ites Summary of Tasks April 1992 - June 1993 unity Impact Analysis, Base Year Data (1990) for Alternative v/supplement community data ble regional land use and systems data "Base Case" Scenario, Alternative Airport Sites Subtask 2.1 orecast "base case" population, households, employment, land use and evelopment patterns Subtask 2.2 orecast "base case' transportation Task 3: 3ervice and Development Scenarios, New Airport Sites Subtask 3.1 reate alternative service and development scenarios for integrating potential ew airport into regional development framework Subtask 3.2 evelop criteria for defining development compatible surrounding airport. Task 4: nalyze Potential Economic Development Impacts, New Airport Sites Subtask 4.1 Review available literature and data on economic development likely to be attracted to a new airport Subtask 4.2 Review available data on economic development attracted to existing airport Subtask 4.3 Estimate magnitude and location of development likely to be attracted to a new airport 2005 and 2020 Task 5. Subtask 5.1 Subtask 5.2 Subtask 5.3 Subtask 5.4 Subtask 5.5 Alternative Sites and Layouts, New Airport Review land acquisition that would be required for airport development at alternative sites Estimate surface transportation impacts from alternative sites and layouts Estimate local and regional land use impacts from alternative sites and layouts Identify socioeconomic impacts of development at alternative sites Estimate impact of alternatives on infrastructure needs, including transportation system 2 Subtask 5.6 Describe adverse impacts of each alternative site Subtask :7.7 Identify measures to mitigate adverse community impacts Subtask Prepare working paper, "Regional Community Impact Analysis, New Airport Sites" WORK PROGRAM TASKS FOR 1993-1994 (Work Scope And Timing To Be Completed) Task 6: Regional/Community Impact Analysis, Alternative Layouts MSP, Subtask 6.1: Review/supplement community and land use data Subtask 6.2: Identify land acquisition that would be required for alternative MSP layouts Subtask 6.3: Identify socioeconomic impacts of alternative MSP layouts Subtask 6.4: Estirnate the extent and location of economic development opportunities with alter- e MSP layouts Subtask 6.5: Estir impact of MSP layouts on community land use plans Subtask 6.6: Estir impact of MSP layouts on local and regional infrastructure (including transportation) plans Subtask 6.7 Define and describe adverse impacts of each alternative MSP layout Subtask 6.8: Identify measures to mitigate adverse community impacts Subtask 6.9: Prepare working paper, "Regional/Community Impact Analysis, Alternative MSP Layouts" Task 7: Inventory Land Use and Development Factors for New Airport and MSP Expanded Subtask 7.1: Review land use data files for new airport and MSP for adequacy Subtask 7.2: Determine additional data required for land use impacts, community impacts, and mitigation of adverse community impacts Subtask 7.3: Collect required additional data Subtask 7.4: Format data and prepare working paper, "Land Use and Development Factors" Task 8: Develop Off -Airport Land Use Strategy Subtask 8.1: Describe alternative off -airport land use policies (Joint MAC/Met Council) Subtask 8.2: _ Conduct working session with staff and agencies Subtask 8.3: Prepare working paper, "Off -Airport Land Use Strategy" Task 9: Develop Land Acquisition Program (All MAC) Subtask 9.1: Prepare land ownership map covering areas concerned in off -airport land use strategy Subtask 9.2: Conduct land valuation study Subtask 9.3: Identify total land acquisition program Subtask 9.4: Identify land acquisition schedule 3 Subtask 9.5: etermine land acquisition costs Subtask 9.6: dentify land acquisition procedures Subtask 9.7: ;repare working paper, "Land Acquisition" Task 10: Determine Impact on Existing Land Use Plans Subtask 10.1: etermine development objectives of affected jurisdictions Subtask 10.2: dentify any development constraint due to aircraft noise (MAC) Subtask 10.3: dentify potential areas of induced developments Subtask 10.4: Zeview the probable induced development areas with local jurisdictions and finalize Subtask 10.5: repare working Paper, "Impact on Existing Land Use Plans" Task 11: Subtask 11.1: Subtask 11.2: Subtask 11.3: Subtask 11.4: Task 12: Subtask 12.1: Subtask 12.2: Subtask 12.3: Subtask 12.4: Task 13: Subtask 13.1: Subtask 13.2: Subtask 13.3: Subtask 13.4: Off -Airport Land Use Management Program onsider alternative off -airport land use management programs Discuss with affected jurisdictions finalize off -airport land use management programs repare working paper, "Off -Airport Land Use Management" Public Service Impact Mitigation Program Jentify public service requirements due to induced growth )etermine impact of additional demand on local jurisdictions Jentify means to mitigate impact of increased public service requirements repare working paper, "Public Service Impacts" Land Use and Regional/Community Impact Report )ine working papers into final report and prepare draft report for review uct a series of briefings with local jurisdictions to review draft report uct working session with staff to review comments ;h Community Impact Report 4 ELEMENT IV: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 1: Regional/Community Impact Analysis, Base Year Data (1990) for Screening Alternative Sites and Layouts and Site Selection Subtask 1.1 Review/supplement community data Narrative: The purpose of this task is to analyze the community impacts of alternative sites and airport layouts for integration into the Site Selection in Element I (New Airport Site Selection Study). This data and impact analysis will be used in a two step process: site screening (completed by May 15, 1992) and site selection (completed by January 1, 1993). All data not listed below but included in the HNTB Information Matrix for site screening and site selection will be collected by HNTB or by Dakota County under contract to MAC. All data will be incorporated into the new airport unified data base managed by MAC. The Council will review all data base items. The data base will be maintained at the MAC offices with copies (hard and electronic) at Met Council offices and Dakota County. As data is developed and incorporated into the data base, it will be reviewed by the MAC, Met Council and Dakota County and any issues/concerns with the data identified. Screening Data (Met Council): Screening Area (Dakota Search Area and Screening Impact Area) • Determine with MAC "Screening Impact Area"; 3 -mile radius of the search area -- map boundary using 1990 Census Tracts/Blocks and which includes portions of Dakota, Washington and Goodhue Counties and Pierce County Wisconsin. • All map products for the unified data base will use TIGER map as base (provided by HNTB). Census Data • Finalize with MAC socio-economic and demographic screening factors: population and households. • All socio-economic and demographic data for the search area and HNTB to provide preliminary map of Census Tracts/Blocks. • Supplement and refine "screening impact area" geography and coordinate with forecasting efforts to collect and display data at the TAZ level. • All map products for the unified database will use TIGER map as base (provided by HNTB). • Council will provide census data in machine-readable format if possible and in written reports. Land Use • Finalize with residential, pat • Review maps governments a • Supplement la County; invest Site Selection (Met C Site Selection Impact C screening land use categories: agricultural, commercial, industrial, pen space, institutional, public. d data from the Council's digitized aerial photos with local/county revise or refine as necessary. use data as needed for "screening impact area" (Washington and Dakota e sources for Goodhue County and Pierce County, Wisconsin). • Determine "Site Selection Impact Area'; 3 -mile radius of the 3 or more (estimate) airport sites -- map bo ndary using 1990 Census Tracts/Blocks and which may include portions of Dakota, Washington and Goodhue Counties and Pierce County, Wisconsin. • All map products for the unified data base will use TIGER map as base (provided by HNTB). Governance • Prepare governance map showing boundaries/jurisdictions of affected local governments, special districts school districts, watershed districts/WMO's and other entities. Highways • Verify maps an J plans for local transportation systems for consistency with regional plans and approved local plans. Wastewater • Verify maps an plans for local systems for consistency with regional plans and approved local plans. Input: All information gener ated by Element I, subtasks 1.1, 1.2, including: street maps, USGS topographic maps, oblique and vertical aerial photographs, current land use plans and zoning maps, socioeconomic And demographic data from 1990 census, public services, utility infrastructure, and Dakota County property data including land values and agricultural preserves maps. Output: Summary of updated Criteria -- May 15, 1S maps and tabular dat; nmmunity and land use data and data files (screening: HNTB Site Screening )2) (site selection: HNTB site selection criteria -- January 1, 1993) including consensus on data sources, their adequacy and accuracy, and use of data. Co Incorporation into unified new airport data base. Schedule: Begin in 1992. Compile screening criteria data by May 15, 1992 (target date) to identify 3 alternative sites/layouts for comparison among most promising potential sites/layouts; complete and update data in January 1993 for final selection of a single new airport site and layout. 7 Task 1: Subtask 1.2 Narrative: IV: REGIONAUCOMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES I/Community Impact Analysis, Base Year Data (1990) for Alternative ble regional land use and systems data -- site selection phase Assemble information on regional facilities and infrastructure, including existing and proposed regional systems (sewers, highways, transit, parks, airports) and other Council plans and policies (water supply, surface water drainage, solid waste.) Supplement with additional information on other "regional" level infrastr cture such utility transmission lines, railroad lines. Coordinate/consult with local governments and other affected agencies to agree on data to be used for further analysis. The geographic unit for wh ch data should be collected is Dakota County ("site selection impact area"), to be supplemented if eeded to cover any additional territory (Washington/Goodhue counties.) Land Usetablish classification for land use mapping; collect current and future land use plans for affected areas; compare with plans and amendments in Council Land Coverage (Update land coverage data and map from satellite photos, review with local governments (HNTB to define additional data needs). MUSA (Map existing Metropolitan Urban Services Area line (TIGER base map). Wastewater Map location of all regional sewage collection/interceptor facilities, public and private treatment plants using Council and MWCC files. Transportation Collect the following data from search area study files and Council files, supplemented with data from local governments and others as may be necessary: existing highway and transit system, future improvement plans, railway route, transit and traffic information. Input: Existing data on file at Metropolitan Council and other regional agencies. Draft data developed for unified data base. Output: File including maps and tabular data; agreement by local governments on adequacy and accuracy of data file. Unified data base file. Schedule: Begin in April 1992. Complete in October 1992. 1. ELEMENT IV: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 2: Forecast "Base Case" Scenario, Alternative Airport Sites Subtask 2.1 Forecast "base case" population, households, employment, land use and development patterns Narrative: Forecast "base case" population, households and employment forecasts and land use and development patterns for impact area for 2005 and 2020 (straight line projection for Council 1995-2015 forecast period), based on current development pattern and Metropolitan Council forecasts. Coordinate/consult with local governments to gain agreement on forecast data and to reconcile any differences. Develop projections of land use changes (2005-2020) based on forecasts. Input: All data from Task 1. Metropolitan Council forecasts at MCD and TAZ (traffic assignment zone) level. Consultations with local governments. Output: Maps and tabular data; agreement by local governments on adequacy and accuracy of data file. Summary report on "base case" scenario. Schedule: Begin in June 1992. Complete in November 1992. Assumes that the Council's MCD level forecasts will be finalized by October 1, 1992. 7 F Task 2: Subtask 2.2 Narrative: IV: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES "Base Case" Scenario, Alternative Airport Sites "Base Case" Transportation Forecast future (2005 and 2020) demand and level of service for the current and future highway network based on current development plans (base case -- MSP airport location). 2020 forecast will require additional work, since Council forecasts are for the 1995-2015 period. Input: All data from Task 1. Metropolitan Council forecasts at MCD and TAZ (Traffic Assignment Zone) level. Consultations th local governments. Output: Maps and tabular data; agreement by local governments on adequacy and accuracy of data file. Summary report on "base case" scenario. Schedule: Begin i� September 1992. Complete in December 1992. Assumes that the Council's MCD 1 vel forecasts will be finalized by October 1, 1992; TAZ by October 1, 1992. EG ELEMENT IV: REGIONAUCOMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 3: Service and Development Scenarios, New Airport Sites and Layouts Subtask 3.1: Create alternative service and development scenarios for integrating potential new airport into regional development framework Narrative: Develop three or more generic scenarios to reflect the major policy options for integrating a new major airport into the regional land use pattern as described by the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF). A minimum of three major policy scenarios will be created as follows: a) Isolated airport site; maintain rural/agricultural character outside the "base case" Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA); b) Airport connected to MUSA by urban scale development in defined ttansportation corridors and/or nodes; and C) Airport and all intervening area incorporated into expansion of MUSA for a continuous development pattern. Each major policy scenario will include a narrative and graphic description, and an evaluation of how it impacts existing MDIF policies (including the supply and demand for urbanized land in the MUSA), all other policies of the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) (including the policies and plans for metropolitan systems) and implementation of scenarios under the Airport Development Act. Each scenario will also be examined for impact on local policies and infrastructure. The scenarios will be used to evaluate the local and regional land use impacts and infrastructure ne: Is for the alternative airport sites and layouts, which may vary depending on the alternative regional policies represented by the development scenarios. The Metropolitan Council will adopt one development scenario by the end of 1992 for the selected new airport site and layout to integrate the new major airport into the Council's long-range plans for guiding regional land use and infrastructure investment decisions (MDIF). The development scenario will include a narrative and graphic description for use in analysis of the more detailed regional and community impact analysis to be done in the new airport comprehensive plan (Element II). Input: Data from MSP Re -Use Study. Metropolitan Council reports on the status of the MUSA- Data from task 1. Consultations with Metropolitan Council staff familiar with various aspects of MDIF and MDG policies. 11 Coordination and co and geography. Output: Report containing n; analysis of potential Schedule: Begin with local governments, as well as experts in real estate, urban design ,e and graphic descriptions of the three or more development scenarios and nal and community development impacts of alternative site and layouts. April 1992; draft in late June for charrette/expert panel in July 8 and 9, by end of 1992. 12 ELEMENT IV: REGIONAUCOMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 3: Development Scenarios, New Airport Sites and Layouts Subtask 3.2: Develop criteria for defining development compatible surrounding airport. Narrative: Develop criteria to be used to determine the type and amount of development considered appropriate in the various buffer areas surrounding an airport. The criteria will be used to estimate local development impacts for both the new airport sites and surrounding MSP. Establish a basic set of criteria and apply; for example: buy development in the Ldn 70 contour, local land use controls ncluding prohibiting housing) and development standards in the 65-70 Ldn contour, local land use controls in the 60-65 Ldn contour. Local options or choices in the type of controls should be examined that could reflect local "values"; for example, the criteria will be„applied to both the New Airport and MSP, so local "values" of noise compatibility for housing may allow existing housing to remain in the Ldn 65-70 contour. Input: Metropolitan Council and MAC existing airport land use guidelines, noise compatibility criteria including FAR Part 150, state and federal safety standards. WISP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Offsite Costs report. Consultations with MAC, local governments and appropriate agencies. Output: Land use compatibility criteria for use in analysis of alternative sites and layouts and for regional and community impacts of new major airport comprehensive plan. Schedule: Begin in June. Complete by the end of 1992. 13 IV: REGIONAUCOMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 4: Analyze Potential Economic Development Impacts, New Airport Sites and Subtask 4.1: eview available literature and data on economic development likely to be ttracted to a new airport Narrative: Conduct a literature search on economic development around other airports nationally and summarize the results. Consult with staff and select typical airports (such as Dallas -Ft. Worth, Washington Dulles, Kansas City, Atlanta and Denver) for analysis. Provide summary of interviews. Define "airport environs" for economic development impacts for each development scenario. Describe national experience with economic development around airports and economic development incentives (infrastructure, financing, etc.) used to stimulate or direct/attract economic development. Define sequence of development (commercial, industrial and residential) and timing. Identify cost of direct efforts and who provided or paid for them. Identify potential deve opment and activity impacts on the two Downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul and major suburban employment concentrations (employment of more than 10,000), major adjacent Greater Minnesota cities of Rochester, Mankato, St. Cloud (less than 100 miles). Identify major factors f om national experience which could make a difference and could differentiate among alternative sites (and layouts). Input: Literature search and interviews. Metropolitan Council Hub Studies. Consultations with local planning officials as wc 11 as experts in real estate, urban design and geography. Output: Description of local and national experience with economic development around selected airports. Identification of significant factors for differentiating among potential site (and layouts). Use in `alternative development scenario analysis. Schedule: Begin in April 1992. Complete in November 1992. 14 ELEMENT IV: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 4: Analyze Potential Economic Development Impacts, New Airport Sites and Layouts Subtask 4.2: Review available data on economic development attracted to existing airport Narrative: Review current developments around MSP to establish relationships between airport operations and surrounding development. Input: Information from Re -Use Study. Description of economic development around existing airport. Consultations with local planning officials as well as experts in real estate, urban design and geography. Output: Description of local economic development around MSP. Identification of economic land uses likely to move to "new airport environs" or on-site. Schedule: Begin in April 1992. Complete in November 1992. 15 ELEMENT Task 4: A a Subtask 4.3: E n Narrative: : REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES lyze Potential Local Economic Development Impacts, New Airport Sites. Layouts nate magnitude and location of development likely to be attracted to a airport 2005 and 2020 Using the experience o the development around MSP and other airports, estimate the type, magnitude and location of businesses that may locate near the airport (including freight forwarders, professional services, hotel, conference facilities, restaurants, residential (type and cost) and other development) under each development scenario. Convene 2 -day expert panel to critique information and draft analysis including people with backgrounds in land use F tanning, economic development, real estate investment/finance, developers (commercial/industrial and residential; central city and suburban; Metropolitan Area and Greater Minnesota). Input: Information from Subtas4.1 and 4.2; consultations with local planning officials as well as experts in real estate, urban desi n and geography. OutRut: Estimates of acres/square feet/rooms/households/jobs/ or other appropriate measures of development that might be anticipated to be attracted to a new airport site. Prepare working paper, 'Induced Development" Schedule: Begin in April. 1992; expert panel in September/October 1992; and complete in November1992 16 ELEMENT IV: REGIONAUCOMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 5: Evaluate Alternative Sites and Layouts, New Airport Subtask 5.1: Review land acquisition that would be required for airport development at alternative sites Narrative: Using maps of alternative site provided by MAC, identify the extent of land acquisition necessary to accommodate each alternative airport site and its associated buffer areas. This will be accomplished using: • land use data from subtask 1.1, 3.1, and 3.2; • the schematic layout plans (airport operation area) for each site; • the buffer zones (state safety zones, airport development area, noise/environmental impact/protection areas); and • the ground access plans from Element I, Task 3. Prepare land acquisition map at a scale of 1 inch equals 1,000 feet. This analysis will be integrated with the evaluation process conducted under Element I, task 5. Input: Output from Element I and Element IV, subtask 1.1. Output: Listing and map of land parcels to be acquired for each alternative. Schedule: Begin when site boundaries are available and when data is available from Subtask 1.1. 17 a ELEMENT IV: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 5: Evaluate Alternative Sites and Layouts, New Airport Subtask 5.2: Estimate surface transportation impacts from alternative sites and layouts Narrative: Develop schematic surface access systems for each site and layout (2 access points). Estimate the impact of each alternative site and layout on regional transportation system. Estimate travel times and travel distances frorr. alternative sites to major origination/destination points throughout the region. Identify the impact and preliminary cost implications of each alternative on regional transportation system and community system. Input: Regional .development scenarios, highway and transportation forecasts, input from local governments (subtasks 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2. 2, 3.1). Output: Impact of each alternativ site and layout on regional transportation system. Travel times and travel distances from alternativ sites to major origination/destination points throughout the region. Schedule: Begin in �anuary 1993. Complete in March 1993. ELEMENT IV: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 5: Evaluate Alternative Sites and Layouts, New Airport Subtask 5.3: Estimate local and regional land use impacts from alternative sites and layouts Narrative: Evaluate each alternative site and layout combination to determine opportunities for each development scenario. Estimate amount, type, sequence, timing and location of land use changes for years 2005 and 2020 (refer to 4.3). Input: Regional development scenarios, land use compatibility standards, input from local governments (subtasks 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.3 and 5.1). Output: General location and magnitude of expected land use changes at each alternative site and airport environs area using the development scenarios. Schedule: Begin in January 1993. Complete in March 1993. 19 ELEMENT IV: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 5: E aluate Alternative Sites and Layouts, New Airport Subtask 5.4: Id ntify socioeconomic impacts of development at alternative sites Narrative: Identify and quantify the anticipated changes in population, households, employment and other socioeconomic variables that are anticipated with the construction and operation of a new airport, for the years 2005 and 2020 using the development scenarios. Input: Output from subtasks 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.3, 5.3. Output:-_. Forecasts of 2005 and 2020 population, households and employment for each alternative and development scenario. Identification of key differences among scenarios. Schedule: Begin in 4anuary 1993. Complete in March 1993. 20 ELEMENT IV: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 5: Evaluate Alternative Sites and Layouts, New Airport Subtask 5.5: Estimate impact of alternatives and development scenarios on infrastructure needs, including transportation system Narrative: Identify the impact of each alternative site on public services, utilities and transportation facilities as compared to "base case" of currently planned system for 2005 and 2020. Determine hierarchy of infrastructure to be used to determine impacts -- regional, county/local -- for transportation (highways --Interstate Highway/Principal Arterial to minor arterial) (transit), sewers (regional interceptor to local trunk line), parks and open space (regional park to community park), solid waste, storm water, water. This analysis will be integrated with the evaluation process conducted under Element I, task 5. Inguf: Regional development scenarios, input from local governments (Element I and Element IV subtasks 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 5.2). Output: Summary of regional and local infrastructure impacts. Summary of impacts on regional and local transportation plans. Schedule: Begin January 1993. Complete in March 1993. 21 ELEMENT IV: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 5: Subtask 5.6: Narrative: Summarize adverse social, development scenario, in Include impacts from noi: Input: Output from subtasks 5.1 Output:.. Summary report of ci uate Alternative Sites and Layouts, New Airport impacts of each alternative site and economic regional/community impacts for each alternative site and luding impacts on tax base, governance structure, and public facilities. to be provided by MAC. though 5.5; input from local governments ty impacts. Schedule: Begin in March 1993. Complete in April 1993. 22 ELEMENT IV: REGIONAL/COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 5: Evaluate Alternative Sites and Layouts, New Airport Subtask 5.7: Identify measures to mitigate adverse community impacts Narrative: Identify general measures of regional/community impact mitigation for each alternative site. Review impact analysis in subtask 5.5. The products of this subtask will be integrated with the evaluation processes conducted under Element I, task 5. Mitigation measures for community impacts will be identified on two levels: • Measures specific to airport development (including relocation of homes, businesses and public facilities) and • Broad impact measures (such as changes in governance structure, tax policies, regional systems policies). Measures to mitigate adverse noise impacts will be provided by MAC (PART 150). Input: Output from subtasks 3.2, 5.6, consultations with MAC and local governments. Output: Potential mitigation measures, such as: governance options, replacement/construction of public facilities, changes in local or regional plans or other public policies, strategies for land use compatibility and noise mitigation. Schedule: Begin in February 1993. Complete in April 1993. 23 ELEMENT M REGIONAUCOMMUNITY IMPACT STUDIES Task 5: Evaluate Alternative Sites and Layouts, New Airport Subtask 5.8: Pr tpare working paper, "Regional/Community Impact Analysis, New Airport Sit s" Narrative: Summarize analysis completed under tasks 1.1 through 5.6 into a draft working paper. Review with MAC, local governments and others as appropriate. Incorporate comments into a final working paper. Input: Output from tasks 1.1 thr ugh 5.6. Output: Draft working paper, "Regional/Community Impact Analysis" (250 copies) Final working paper (10N copies) Schedule: Begin in April 1993. Draft paper by July 1993. Final draft in October 1993. 24