The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.a. SOAR Presentation / Dual Track Planning Process UpdateCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 3, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: SOAR Presentation/Update AGENDA SECTION: Dual Track Planning Process Department Heads Reports PREPARED BY: Stephan Jilk AGENDAI p �l f 3 ATTACHMENTS: Public Hearing Notice APP OVER BY: Noise Abatement Process JF U This will be the Monthly update from SOAR representatives. I have also provided information regarding the upcoming meeting on noise abatement programs which the Metropolitan Airports Commission is considering. This meeting is relevent to the Dual Track process in how the considerations being given to the Richfield and South Minneapolis area should also be considered in the cost/benefit analysis in the Dual Track study. We will provide an update from that meeting. Additionally, City and County Administrators held discussion on Thursday, October 29th on how the monitoring and involvement in the Dual Track process can be made more efficient and more effective from the Cities and Countys' standpoint. The result of that discussion was that the County will coordinate a Dual Track Forum, sometime in November. This forum will include representation from the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Dakota County, SOAR and the Cities in Dakota County. The purpose of the forum will be to bring some direction on the process. Almost every City represented indicated a major concern over the lack of coordinated effort by Cities and the County on this matter and the immense task before all of us in trying to just "keep a handle" on what is going on with the process. After the forum is completed the City Administrators and the County intend to draft a position on how the entire process can be more effectively and efficiently coordinated and how we can all keep more involved. All Cities and the County indicated the same concern about staffing time available for this. Even though it is extremely important to all of us there just is not enough time to stay on top of it on an individual basis. Some coordinated approach is essential. RECOMMENDED ACTION:None at this time COUNCIL ACTION: METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION r Pt,S S, -ti, 9 Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport a t 6040 - 28th Avenue South -0 Minneapolis. MN 55450-2799 A o Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5'296 y9t ' t 0 D y l d O' Vti 4RVOR�� GO NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING ON VARIOUS OPTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL NOISE ABATEMENT AT MSP THE MINNEAPOLIS -SAINT PAUL METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION ("COMMISSION-) WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 30, 1992 TO RECEIVE COMMENT FROM ALL INTERESTED PERSONS CONCERNING VARIOUS OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION FOR ASSURING ADDITIONAL AIRCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT ACTIONS ARE TAKEN BY THE AIRLINES SERVING THE MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (-MSP-) THROUGH DECEMBER 1999, WHEN FEDERAL LAW MANDATES THAT THE NATIONAL FLEET SHOULD BE ALL "STAGE 3" AIRLINE AIRCRAFT. AT ISSUE IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD TAKE ADDITIONAL LOCAL ACTIONS TO REDUCE OPERATIONS OF NOISIER STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT OR, GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY OF THEREBY LOSING FLIGHTS AND JOBS, ALLOW THE FEDERAL LAW MANDATING A PHASED TRANSITION TO STAGE 3 OPERATIONS TO TAKE EFFECT OVER TIME AT MSP. Information on Public Hearing The Public Hearing will be held as follows: Time: 7:00 - 11:00 p.m. Date: Monday, November 30, 1992 Location: The Thunderbird Hotel 2201 East 78th Street Bloomington, Minnesota Additional sessions will be scheduled and promptly announced if it appears that all persons interested in being heard in person cannot be adequately heard during the time allotted for the session announced above. The Commission's Planning and Environment Committee shall serve as the Hearing Officer. A certified stenographer will be present to record all proceedings and to prepare a transcript for later consideration by the Commission. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTY1BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN Subject Matter of Hearings Members of the Commission and segments of the community were disturbed at Northwest Airlines' ("Northwest") recent announcement that it planned to exceed currently applicable noise levels at MSP (i.e., 24% below August 1986 baseline) for up to eighteen months. This unilateral decision by MSP's major hub carrier will increase aircraft noise experienced by many area residents. At the time of Northwest's announcement, four other major_ carriers at MSP exceeded their noise allocations as calculated by the draft Noise Budget Ordinance methodology. Since 1987, the Commission calculated aircraft noise levels based on methodology contained in its Draft Noise Budge Ordinance (1987). Calculations are made in units of Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE), with a stated objective to reduce aircraft noise to that tolerated by the community in August 1984. Northwest had agreed with the Commission to reduce its noise by percentages equal to the total airport goal, and agreed that negotiated agreements could achieve the same goals as a formally enacted ordinance. Other major airlines also negotiated noise agreements with the Commission. Until the recent change in the Northwest flight schedules at MSP, total airport noise was reduced over time in accord with the schedule in the Draft Noise Budget Ordinance. The Commission has decided not to respond to Northwest's action without first seeking to obtain advice and recommendations from a wide cross-section of public and private sector witnesses on a broader issue: The Federal Government mandates a transition to an all -Stage 3 fleet by December 31, 1999. In light of that program, what additional approaches, if any, should the Commission adopt beyond its ongoing programs to increase the level of achievable aircraft noise reduction it can obtain from all airlines serving MSP through December 1999? Specifically, the Commission seeks input on three options open to it (subject to legal challenge), or any combinations of them, and additional suggestions from the public: Given the Commission's obligation under its charter and statutory authority to determine the proper balance between the metropolitan area's need for adequate air service, protecting area residents from adverse environmental impacts, and protecting itself from legal liability resulting from excessive levels of aircraft noise, should the Commission -- 1. Enact an ordinance to implement the "Draft Noise Budget Ordinance (Draft 4/7/87)" ("Noise Budget Ordinance") that was not enacted in 1987 in favor of voluntary compliance after agreements were negotiated with individual airlines? 2. Seek to negotiate prospective, comprehensive voluntary agreements with Northwest and all passenger airlines serving MSP to increase the level of achievable noise reduction the Commission can obtain through December 1999? 3. Prepare to enact a new ordinance (updated Noise Budget Ordinance or Acceleration of Federal Stage 2 Phaseout Schedule) that would allow the Commission to enforce each carrier's new negotiated agreements through 1999 and would mandate involuntary compliance by those airlines not choosing to negotiate agreements? a � k The Commission has also directed the Commission staff to promptly prepare a report detailing the degree of compliance by individual airlines with their negotiated noise abatement agreements between 1987-1992, and as compared to the actual text of the "Draft Noise Budget Ordinance 4/7/87." This "Airline Noise Compliance Report" is expected to be available on November 2, 1992. Prospective witnesses at the Public Hearing and commentors submitting material for the public record are urged to obtain and comment on this report as part of their input to the Public Hearing process. Background Reading Materials for Public Hearing A copy of this notice and currently available background reading materials are being mailed to all known interested parties, and will be available for public inspection in the Commission's General Offices. A copy of the Airline Noise Compliance Report referred to in the preceding paragraph will be forwarded to individuals of this mailing when available. Individual copies of all materials will also be mailed upon request to any person. The background documents are: 1. Background Information: The Commission Staff Paper Evaluating Various Options for Commission Action in 1992; 2. Historical documents detailing Noise Budget proceedings. 0 f 115N R19w U 7, � 127th Ci. w, per' /l 11 �.f \16tH St 000 _ TIISN R19w 21 121 26121 � mST. 12sM � 1711{ i <* O t2 4s•�•+ gO ST. Wt. 5 -:'Si. j 1 SN R194f WAY Q w4r 13ptn ST. i ytOM U 131st ST, w. 132 132n0 St. Kegan L,a4e •. City of Rosemount4P�rN 1 Current 1990 MUSA Proposed MUSA Expansion 151St •i i . :o:�:!.%y:::?1`:.k.:-:M:; �r Attachment 2 �t Tres R19w +Ilo -I 1 s \std V / d ST. 19 20 142n )0 29 I SN 8194 S3 _ r -...,:tiff,•': d: - 14W ' ST. ::ood &t3a: 1PPTR 14.5m St. i .w ..... .....:::. I44M L S . N•.In SL ~ 0 C '< W 145th R' P St. 000 _ TIISN R19w 21 121 26121 y 14SM S:. 146th < ST. 0 1•• s j i 2..' < < 1461h14iM uST` t2 4s•�•+ gO ST. Wt. 5 -:'Si. j • : 14Rtn 51. • R'PER Nith ST, of c r oz ;i IWP/N .,j a 14Ym 4. S. 6 H9m %1 o m ISOIh ST. 42 UPPER T19M ST. 10NER 150th ST. 13V Proposed MUSA Expansion 151St •i i . :o:�:!.%y:::?1`:.k.:-:M:; 245 acres xl3l isr. nlsN • ,� l •'•% R20w NIb , /':: 115N RI'w UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA � • 6 UIY•1 I NSIb SL' _ :•�; � • ' • :� ••• •• 2.3. 1461 154m ST. W. I SL ,;,,•t 4. UPPEN 116th SI. g •' ': �•• 4LUPPUPP R 14Trh ST. /••• :..� S. CNEVTLLE CT. - -.__..&CHARLESTON AVE.` CORrCLL IR. ••� t✓ !" 156th Sr. •• ;� z �•�. C; i ,3pNELL TR. .'.% Li t l'• c u TI ISN 8194 I� •' ` 1r 33134 i •' T114N 4194 ' t V. ♦ 160tH �' ST. �� 14