The URL can be used to link to this page

05-08-1996 ARC Packet• � • � ,, i� � , ,� � � � �, ' ' , • � ^ , � � , � � ; !. . ;►_ .t ;,�,: I �, , . . . . �� Please nofie. eary 7 p.m. start time �' *� 1. Cail to Order - 7:00 o'clock p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of April 10, 19Q6 Meetir�g Minutes. 5. �►cknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Corres�ondence° a. MASAC April 23,1996 Agenda and March 26, 1996 Minutes b. MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for March 1996 c. Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for March 1996 d. MSP Monthiy Complaint Summary e. March 19,1996 and April 16, 1996 IVlinutes of Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition f. IVIAC - PART 150 Policy Advisory Committee Agenda for May 7, 1996 and December 19, 1995 Minutes. g. MASAC Legislative Summary for 1996 6. Unfinishec! and IVew Business: � a. Discuss Mendota Heights Airport Plan of Action b. Discuss Noise Mitigation Committee and Review Noise Mitigation Plan 7. Updates a. Review Non Simultaneous Departure Procedures b. Review Noise Abatement Departure Profiles c. Review Articles for Mendota Heights Highlites - May Edition �. ��h�-., C��,:-;;'s';..:r�i� c;r Conre�r�:�. • � • . Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this rr�ay not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452-1850 with requests. � , �' a,� , . �l METROPOUTAN AIRCRAFi' SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL General Meefina April 23, 1996 7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota � 1. Caii to Order, Roil Caii 2. • Approval af Minutes of Meeting Maroh 26, 1996 ' 3. irrtroduction c�f invited Guests Receipt� of Communications i 4. Technicai Advisors Runway System Utilizaati�on Report and Complaint Summary 5. Update: �egislative Affairs by David Oombrowski� MAC Director 6. Sunfish Lake Membership Qualifications 7. Report of the MAC Aprii Commission Meeting 8. Persons Wishing to Address the Council 9. Other ttems Not on the Agenda 10. Adjoummerrt Ne�ct Meeting: May 28, 1996 NQ�e Qni.y d+asignated MA'SAG : � ; t'eprese�fat[yes<seafedsat fh�.:table wdl b�: _; ( ) • ailowed;ta vote:: '. < ` e..� : :_;. ,, _. . .. . �.., . .... MINUTES METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCI� GENERA� MEETING March 26� 1996 7:30 p.m. 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota Call to Order Roli Cail The meeting was cailed to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:30 p.m. and the secretary was asked to. call the roil. The foliowing members were in attendance: Mark Salmen Brian Bates Mike Geyer Bob Johnson Ron Johnson Dick Keinz John Richter Jim Serrin Carol McGuire Tom Hueg Scott Bunin Don Priebe Jamie Verbrugge Petrona Lee Mayor Tom. Egan Mike Schlax Lance Staricha Jill Smith � Ed Porter � Dale Hammons Manny Camilon Bob Andrews Advisors Ron Glaub John Foggia Roy Fuhrmann Visitors Borys Polec Dean Lindberg Dick Saianders Northwest Airbome UPS ' M BAA ALPA MAC Minneapolis Minneapolis St. Paul St. Paui St. Paul Richfield Richfield Bloomington Eagan Eagan Eagan • Mendota Heights Burnsville Inver Grove Heights St. Louis Par{c St. Louis Park FAA Technical Advisor Supervisor ANSP Minneapolis SMAAC Diamond Lake Association C C 2. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the February 26, 1996 meeting were approved as presented. 3. Introduction of invited Guests Receipt of Communication No invited guests. No communications. 4. Technical Advisor's Runwav Svstem Utilization Report and Complaint Summarv The Technical Adviso�"s Report for the month of February 1996 was distributed and reviewed by John Foggia. Points of interest included: ` 1290 average number of operations per day (increased by 37 over last year). * 482 noise complaints �decreased by 288 over last year). '` The MAC Intemet Website is up-and-running - questions and comments can be forwarded to the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program Department.: A reminder that the I�temet and E-mail address has been added to the front cover sheet of the Technical Adviso�'s Report. * The Tower Log reports show that usage of the Crosswind Runway is down - caused by necessity of snow removal. 2.4% of departures were off Runway 22. * Nighttime carrier jet operation departures off Runway 29UR were at 39.7% - attributed to weather conditions. * Stage 3 carrier jet operations were 47.4%. * �Total carrier jet operations for February 1996 - 24,626. Mr. Foggia communicated that MAC Aviation Noise and Satelite Program staff, Jeff Fiamiel,. and Nigel Finney, will be meeting with MSP Tower Chief, after the 1996 l.egislative session closes regarding incneased tra�c overSouth Minneapolis and possible altematives forstraight- out departures. � Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, expressed concems pertaining to whether or not the Dual Track process used updated forecasts on the increase of operations at MSP, and whether or not there will be a monitoring process against projectians to insure that planning for the airport is adequate. Commissioner Himle responded that MAC will be required to present .a 5-year update to the �egislature and general public relative to the status of the forecast. If there are reports indicating traffic increases over and above the forecast figures, there will be an obligation to produce updated data, assessments and reports. , (�� j � . Page 2 �. 5. MASAC Address: John Himle, Chairman. MAC Piannina & Environment Committee �' Chairman Johnson introduced Commissioner John Himle who addressed the Council regarding < the Dual Track process/decision. The requirements of the Dual Track process were completed ahead of the July 1996 schedule. The final recommendation delivered to the Governor/Minnesota Legislature March 18 is that MSP can continue to meet the aviation needs of the area through the year 2020. The three key issues taken into consideration for the recommendation: (1) Aviation needs can be met by continued development of MSP through the year 2020 (2) MSP expansion provides more flexibility and less �nancial risk than building a new airport (3) There is no economic advantage to build a new airport It is important to realize that the recommendation dealt with a forecast range, and not a precise number of operations and passengers. Alternative forecasts were prepared for contingencies such as unusually high or low growth rates, changes in airfares and airline policy. The high end of the forecast range is 48M annual passengers and 640,000 annual operations in the . year 2020. � The airline trend will see a consolidation toward larger aircraft. This is a key factor that "all operations are not created equal". There is a tendancy to'replace smaller aircraft with larger aircraft. The idea and purpose of the airport, is to move more passengers and cargo - not more aircraft. In the forecast, the number of passengers increases at a fa� greater percentage rate than the rate of operations. �" Additionally, the Dual Track process requires MAC to complete a noise mitigation plan for MSP within 180 days. This plan will consider mitigation options for areas in the 60 DNL contour, and should take into consideration proposed runway development. In order to meet this timeframe, a recommendation will be presented to the MAC Commission in September and then submitted to the Legislature. Commissioner Steve Cramer will be leading this effort and will be instrumental in the recommendation. . A lengthy discussion session ensued, focusing primarily on increased operations, runway capacity and contiFlgencies for noise mitigation. Commissioner Himle pointed out that several of the noise mitigation measures to be considered, will not require the support jor approval] of the Legislature. One being, the additional step taken to go beyond federal funding of the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program. PROACTIVELY, COMMUNITIESSHOULDSUBMITIDEASANDTOOLS FORALTERNATIVE LAND USE PROGRAMS WITHIN THE NEXT 90-DAYS. The Legislature may include ir� the Bill, that adding a third parallel runway is not an option. To consider this option may require approval by the �egislature. The current forecasts are predicated on a very important assumption - that there will be no fu�ther enhancements in technology of the air tra�c systems. This is not an accurate assumption. In the last 20-years, there has been a 40% increase in the capacity of the air traffic system largely due to changes and improvements in new technology (radar systems, weather tracking systems, new Page 3 procedures, etc.). The net affect is to get more capacity out of the existing airport. It is only reasonable to believe... there wili be further enhancements to the technological aspects of the airport. � Expectations of the airpo�t communities were considered by the Dual Track process and reflected in the forecasts. MAC will be held accountable for these forecasts. A statutory review process is required every 5-years or sooner. Mitigative measures will be taken to correct adverse effects. The Airport Planning/Bloomington TIF (tax increment financing) Bill is still in the Legislature as of this date. The legislation affecting MAC, permits the Metropolitan Council to .buy the Met Center if necessary, permits the Bloomington Port Authority to transfer TIF rights to Met Center property if a number of conditions are met, and allows MAC to acquire the 33 acres adjacent to the Mall of America for a north/south runway. This (when the Mall of America's development rights are transferred) will result in significant cost savings to the public. Jim Serrin, Minneapolis, expressed his concerns, that the north/south n.mway would not be a noise abatement measure. In his opinion, planning was based on incorrect analysis. "Will it mitigate noise for Minneapolis, or not?" Commissioner Himle stated that although the north/south runway is intended to increase capacity, it may, in his opinion, provide some measure of noise abatement. Mr. Serrin disagreed. Don Priebe, relayed for the record, that the Richfield City Council wants to "kill" fhe north/south runway project: Commissioner Himle responded that he has received phone calls from Richfield residents in favor of the north/south ru�way...it appears to be a divided issue in Richfield. . i �� )6. GPS Utilization for Noise Abatement Procedures Information Item: John Foggia will give a comprehensive presentation on GPS, April 22, at the Midwest Chapter of AAAE Aviation Symposium. Mr. Foggia relayed that according to the FAA, I LS will be gone by the year 201 Q. Through automation, nine years from now technology will be totally changed. Ai�ports will be equal planning partners with the ai�lines. Significant enhancements will take place in airspace management. NASA currently has a study underway looking for 10d6 noise reduction in engine and airframe technology. Their goal is to get this type of reduction (10d6) by the year 2000. Mr. Foggia presented the following GPS report: GPS Basics Implementation: GPS-driven noise abatement determine appropriate pathpoints - precision amval - precision missed approach - precision departure - precision ground movement Page 4 To utilize GPS positioning: - ground Station corrections - on-board GPS receiver - Data Link with pathpoints - on-board Navigation computer - FMS/autopiloUNavigation display Schedule: Flight testing begins April 15. The SLS 2000 SCAT-I Precision Landing System Commissioning - June 1. Near Future: Satellite-based flight control - human factors and technology: - Cultural change - relinquish control to automation - Cockpit culture must accept automation - All aircraft will function with a Datalink - Communities must realize that asking too much will close them out of future planning Airports will own technology, making them equal implementation partners. Airports will need to temper what is too much. 7. Reaort of the Executive Committee Meetinq March 14 1996 Chairman Johnson reported that the MASAC Executive Committee reviewed a request from the. City of Sunfish Lake for full voting membership status on MASAC. The Committee determined that Sunfish Lake has met requirements for attendance at 12 consecutive MASAC meetings, and meets the eligibility requirement of the MASAC By-�aws. The Executive Committee recommends that the City of Sunfish Lake be admitted to full ( MASAC membership. A search is underway for a balancing user representative to satisfy the MASAC Articles of Incorporation requirement: that the User Representatives and the Public Representafives shall at al! times be equal in number. The actual MASAC vote on this recommendation will take place at the regularly scheduled April meeting. 8. Report of MAC March Commission Meetinq Chairman Johnsori reported that the recommendation of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, that aviation needs can be met.by continued development of MSP through the year 2020, was approved by the Commission and will be fonNarded to Legislature. The following day, March 14, the Metropolitan . Council concurred and approved the recommendation to remain at MSP. 9. Persons Wishinq to Address the Coucil Borys Polec reiterated noise complaints - there are planes over his Minneapolis home every 30 seconds. RMT number 6 registers 90dB - people can't live with this noise. There are also many disturbing nighttime flights at low altitudes. He asked that ai� tra�c be distributed evenly over the surrounding communities. � � Page 5 10. Other Items Not on the AQenda John Richter read a news article which is attached to the minutes for your review. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, questioned the status of the Noise Abatement Departure Profiles to which Mark Salmen, NWA; responded: the contour analysis is underway and when received, the Operations Committee will meet and arrive at a final recommendation, hopefully within the next two months. Dick Saunders of the Diamond Lake area of Minneapolis, asked what the air traffic pattems will be during Runway 4/22 construction. John Foggia responded that the noise impact during construction will be little to none. 11. Adjournment Chairman Johnson adjoumed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Jean Deighton, Secretary ,. �, ► • ' 5905 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 612-546-3314 • FAX 612-546-3973 ` March 26, 1996 Ron Ernst 5700 37th Ave. S. Minneapolis MN 55417 Dear Mr. Emst, I read that you were able to buy a home for several thousand dollars less because of the aircraft noise. In fact, the FAA states that an average of 18 1/2% reduction in value is a norm for homes where there is a certain amount of aircra$ noise. Lets assu.me one of your new neighbors wants to move to Bloomington where you moved from. Since the aircraft noise cuts down the value of their present homes how are they .. going to pay for a new home in Bloomiugton. Maybe you can ask the Airport Commission and Northwest Airlines to provide to your neighbors tlie money to make up for the loss in selling their home near the present airport. You might like to Imow a 8 year study ofhomes near the present "in town airport" clearly sl�ows tliat Hennepin County, the Ciry of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis School District are being penalized severely because of the noise. ( Values of homes iin the 75 DMR only went up.7%, the 70 DMB 12%, 65 DMB 19% and 60 DMB 21 % while the cost of living went up some 21 °/a. Most homes near the parkways and lakes went up more tha.n the cost of living except near the airport. Sincerely, John T. Richter JTR/rls/. ernst � �� SO �VhdS 1rYh111�11g? In iesponse to a reader's Mazch 19 letter about south Minneapolis resi- dents whining about airport noise: I bought my home in 1994, for a price many thousands lower than Blooming- ton or Richfield. To me, that noise is the sound of money. I'm happy as a , pig in mud. Only,10 minutes to work and �the-<megamall. Who's whining? _ ( You guys. Interstate Hwy. 394 isn't big , -enough, buitt poorly. Oh, wah — Ron Brns� Minneapolis, `> %/////////////////i �� ////////////i,." __----_-------------_._..._.._....................,., % I � - — �;.�� ,.� � _ Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport � ��.. 'M:1r�i... .e� ��:: w:..........: '� MONTHLY MEETING • Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement CounciC cnar.nwn• Robert P. Jo6ueoo �ce Chatrnran: s�wt B�n�n Techniml Adviror. lo6n Fo�a Sec�etary: Iean Defghbo Airbarne £xpre.ra: B�ian Baln AirTmmport Araocialiars: P�m! MeGeaw ALPA: C6urla W. Curry Ir. c;ry y'Eloom;,tqmn: Petrmq L« Vem SP�mx • cry �a�;u�: Jn+o Rivoe c;n �f�aQ�: Tam E�m Ciry cf/rrnrGroveXeightr: nate a�,um. Ciry cfMendofaHeighfx: JiU Smith Ciry ojMinmapolia: ' Ioma B.3erein 7oun Richt«� Joe Lee . 7udi8�ibdQe Ciry ojRichfuld Gmrge Karnaa . noo r�tcbe City af St. Loutt PanF: t�,� ad�.. c;y �s�. r�: 3ook Bunin c��c.wtia� Card Aon McGidee Delfa AirLinulnc.: Rtch Kidwe� Fedemf Erprr.ra: Tom R6docdc Fedem( Aviation Admini.rtmlion: Bruce Wagoner Romid Gi�b MAC Sm,Q:• Didc IC�a MBM: R�obart P. Jo6asm Mva6a Nmthvesl Airliiek: I�wreaoeMeCabe . Metropo(ifan Airpartt Commitrioec Commirimer Alba Gaeper MNAJrNallanlGuad: Ma{jor Maet 6. Nn� Norlhwut A1rArar: nsa� sam� Jmoifa� 8eyre S(. Pau! C/nmber of Carnmerce: Jacic Bueictey Sun Caunhy Airline.r: I.uke A. Gomrs Uni(ed Ai�linnt Ine.: Ailua 7bmlinsoa Utiled Pnrcel Servica: aiwe w��,- r„�y mn� US.AirFacaRererve: - CapWin 9twm Chapman us.s�,pr��,w�cam�: �a� Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purposes 1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve publi� interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportarion, international, nadonal, state, and local, in and thraugh this state; promote the efficient, safe, and econ�al handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of r,his sta�e in nattonai and incernadonal programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the meaopolican area in this state as an aviaaon center, and to carrelate that area with all aviati� facilities in the entire stabe so as � to provide for the most economical and effective use af aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportario�n, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use. and otbsr protective measures: and 3.) Pro�ote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimi�p � public's expasure to noise and safety hazards around airports: Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This carporadon was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities adjoining Min�eapolis-S� Paul Internadonal Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the Cotmty of Hennepi4 State of Nrnnesota, through the alleviati� of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using ths sirport: through study and evaluadon on a continuing basis of the problem and o� suggestia�n for the alleviatio� of the same; through inidafion. caordination and promoria�n of reasonable and eSfective procedures. contml and regulations. consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same: and thraugh dissemination of infoxmation to the affected. communities. t}�ir affected residents. and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise miisa�ce and in respect to suggestians made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. � Mefropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Councii Representation The membership shall imclude representatives appointed by agencies. corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of thsir statutory authority and responsibility or condrol wer die sirport, or by reasa� of their status as sirport users, have a diract interest ia t�e c�peration of the sirport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, pravided that the User Representatives and Public Renresentatives shall at all times be equal in number. The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411. Complaents to the hotline do not resu[t in changes in Airpon activity, but provides a public sounding board and sirpoct information outlet The hotline is staffed 24-hours Monday - Friday This repat is prepared and printed in house by Traci Frickson, ANOMS Specialist Questions or comments may be directed to: MAC - Aviaflon Noise & Satellite Program Minneapolis / St Paul Intemational Airport 6044 28th Avenue South Minnea}�olis, MN 55490 Tel: (612)`725-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310 ANSP Home Page: hrip:1/www.macavsaLorg lbletcOpOlitall AiCpot'tS COmtYIiSSiOI� Aviation Noise Programs � , �'/' / ` / / / /` / / / . Operations Summary - All Aircraft ..................................................................................... l MSP March Fleet Mix Percenta.ge .................................................................:.....................1 Airport March Cornplaint Summary ....................................................................................1 Niarch Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office ......................................................1 ,ire ''i � i� i• i� � i i i ComplaintSummary by City ...............................................................................................2 . � �� , , �, � � • Tower Log Reports - All Hours .:.........................................................................................3 Tower Log Reports - Nighttime Hours ......................:.........................................................3 . � � , � ,� . Runway Use Report March 1996 .........................................................................................4 /' :' ' � , /' ' / / Runway Use Report March 1996 .........................................................................................5 , • • / �;� i �. i RunwayUse Report March 1996 ......................................................................................:..6 � � � � � / � � i � RunwayUse Report March 1996 .........................................................................................7 / ; ' ' `' � 1 ' / / % 7'' i Aircraft Identifiier and DescriptionTable 9 . � , �� , �� Daytime Hours ......................................................... Community O verflight Analysas .11 ..........................10 Ca.rrier Jet Operations - All Hours .........................................................:...........................11 Carrier 3�t Operations - Nighttime (llpm - 6 am) .............................................................11 Aviatiaai Noise & Satellite Programs �' � /' � `` � / � • ' / � ` / Carrie� ,Iet Arrival I2elated 1lToise Events 13 � Count of Airival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13 � i i ,' i � / i � i �; i � � � � �,, Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14 ' / /`' ' / � . . � . , � � � /;� •' � ' � � � � �, � ♦ / i � 1 / � � / � � / � � r`� • � � , , � , � i ' � � i', . i � ,.• ;,_• �,:: ,� ' l <� � i , � , , �, ,� Flight TracX� �ase 1Ylap 2l C Ai�port Noise ar�d Operations 1Vlonitoring Syster�ts Flight Z'�acks 22 Carrier Jet Operations - March 1996 ........................................ ...............22 .......................... Airport 1lToise and Op�rations 1Vlon�to�zng System Flaght Tracks 23 Carrier Jet Operations - March 1996 .............................:........................................ � ...........23 Ai�ort Noise and Oper°ations l�lanitor�ng System Flight Tracks 24 Carrier Jet Operations - March 1996 ...............................:. ......... 24 ................... . ,.. ............. • ; i � i � i i / i � i � � � , , , � Carrier Jet Operations - Mazch 1996 .................... .,._.... 25 .................................................... Analysis of Az�°craft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Analyszs o, f Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Aviatian Noise & Satellite Programs � � � � I�.�Ptropolitan Airports Commissioai � 1' , i . 1 1 ) . . . � '� � , Operations Summary - All Aircraft MSP 1V�arch Fleet NNiiix Percentage . � Airport 1V�arch Comptaint Summary ' March Operations Summary - Airport Directors Ofiice Aviatio� Noise 8� Satellite Programs Page 1 ?�fetr��+�litanAir�rts Commission �Rinneapolis - St. Paul Interr�ational Airport Complaint Sumrnary 1Vlarch 1996 � Complaint Summary by City ;�>��:<:��:`:��`;:::�>;':��"''�::::>�»>:<:::»::::>:'::::::` :�:::�::;;:>:'«::;:.<>:`{.::::::::::�>.;;;:..;;;:: :;,..::::>::;;::::>>�;:::::::::>>>:::>::>:}:>..:::>� :�:::>::<`:::::::::`«:;:;.>::..::<«:;:::::>�:<:>�: :::�:�:<:;;::> :::::::::::::<::::>�:><::::::::::::::;. ;::.::.::.::::::>:::::»::>: :::::::::::>::;:::>:::::<::::::::: � :�<::::>:<':::>::>:::::;::<::� ::::::::....::::.�'.'::.::.:::::::::::...::::::.:.�: .�:..:::�;�.�::.:.... ...:�. ��:.;>; .;�:<:<: �: �: � .:::+�:.:.�.� ::: :..:.:.... :..:..:<.:�..:.�.�....�.:::�::::<:<:::>: >:<:;�*t:1�'��: .::��:.> Apple Valley 1 11 18 3.0% Arden Hills 1 0 1 0.2% Bloomington 0 17 17 2,g% Burnsville 0 7 � 7 1.2% �g� 45 41 86 14.4% Eden Prairie 0 2 � 2 0.3% Edina 0 7 7 1.2% Hastings 0 3 3 Q.5% Hopkins 0 1 1 0.2% Inver Grove Heights 1 19 20 3.3% Mendota. Heights 7 30 37 6.2% Minneapolis 74 261 335 55.8% Richfield 1 18 19 3.2% Roseville 0 1 1 0.2% South St. Paul 0 5 5 0.8% St. Paul 31 . 8 39 6.5% Wayzata 0 1 1 0.2% �::��::::::��>:�<� :` '`:::'��i�`��:�.;: r>r:: <: <: ::....�;.::.>:..:..,.>::..,;..;;,» ..............:...::..;;::<..::::<>::>:::<:>':�::::�: �<:::::::::::��-::;�::...::.::.<:...<>:�::>:::»: :>:<::<::::::;:::::.;::::.:::.>:.:>..::..r..::..:::..: ::................. ::::: �� ::::>::::>:.: :: :::: : :: :: :::::»:::;:. ...�� .::::::...... . ......:::::..::::...:.:�:: .:... .�:::.; .::::.::.::::::.:.:::: .:.::.: :.rA�.:.:. .:�:..:.::.�.::.::.:::...�:: ::... . . . �.: ::: :::::.:::.::. .: : ::: �.�:: ::::: Time of Day Nature of Complaint Page 2 Aviati� Noise & Satellite Prograzns �. � � �. � Metropolitan Airnorts Commissio�n � , i . ., , , � ♦ r 'i • , . •' ,' ' 1, ;�' 11 ., �� , . � , Nighttime Hours Aviatia�n Noise B'c Sate�lite Programs Page 3 Metropolitan Air�rts Commission lZunway Use Report Niarch 1 Page 4 Aviatian Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commissian Carrier Jet i�perations Runway �.Tse iteport 1Vgarch 1J Aviatio�n Noise & Satellibe Programs Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission Nighttime - Ali Qperations Page 6 Aviati� Noise Fc Satellite Programs (. C C� Metropolitan Airports Commissiaai Nightti�ne Carrier Jet Operations ' � , ' 11 .: Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7 Aletropolitan tlirports Comm.ission � . . , , �. �, � � �� . � '�' � }:....�:�></>�y:i':..>::?:'iii"..:i$;ik�::;::{i>�:::.tFi::' :;'`";.Y.;.:i?...::;'::i:::i�::�:{�:'::.�>....... ;.'�y:�.:.�i:ty:ii:iiipi>:i�'i:::yii�>i:ii:i:i;;::i:::i::>:; ......... !L 7v�� I�" ��4 �11J��rti7ti�� B707 0 O.U% B727H 249 l.l% B�33/4/5 869 3.6% B747 193 0.7% B74F 20 0.0% B757 2055 8.5% B767 0 0.0% BA46 119 0.5% CL65 292 1.2% DA10 0 0.0% DC 10 1017 4.2% DC87 88 0.4% DC9H 2380 9.6% EA31 31 0.1% EA32 1858 7.6% FK10 1112 4.6% L1011 214 'p,gqa MD11 3 0.0% MD80 1168 4.9% BA10 9 0.0% BAll � 3 0.0% � B727 3499 14.3% B�3� 1532 6.3% DC8 93 0.4%a DC9 7586 31.2% F�g 0 0.0% �`_;:>�;�»;?�'�>:>`��<�>><><':;.::' ::::<:::�:;::;>y';:;: ..r.y:::�:I>�:;:;;..,;;..,;;;;> ::��:>:;:�?��"�"'��'y'�}.�`>::�:':<:>€:>:` �.Ji £P:::.: .:... ....::::::��;i0.:;';�:'::::; , Page 8 Aviatio� Noise & Satellite Programs ' : ', � i - //� 52.2% Stage II � ;� � Metropolitan Airports Commission ' . ; 1 ,. . ; . � �. . 1 1 j . 1 • p� :::i::::::i��':il'l::}:�::::::i:::.::1::}:::{'�'!�'�.::::::y::Ci:i::i)Fi':::::(',: V�i:y:::�::::::::i::i.:i +i:::::i::::::::y:L::::i::i::::i.:::i:i:::::iii:::::ii:ii:.::::i:::j:::j::i::::i::::i:::,::: ::i:::i��•::::i<::::::::•F:"•ti:::::•,:�::iii:ti: ti{:::::::�:i::::::::::i::}:i'Y::i:i>::y:':::>::>::::::: :::::::::::::::::::�i:::::::::�:�:^r?:�:j:::i: : ' :r.�. .y.�y� . :y: �i ('� L:ka.�� ....................................n.................. . . �7R.1tll•.�..�ai�' 1:� t:;:::;::j:f:�::':::::ii.:.�...�iii.:.:::.�.:.:i.'iin:n:iiii;ii..:'.:,::i:.::.:iii...:ii.� . ;iC��.:::.� ::.:::::::::.:::;•::....•:.•.•,,.•..•,..•..:.•.:,•.:;......:,...,..•.,•:.• ;;;::•:lF:�.�::.: :; . :. :. :................................................................ B707 BOEING 707 B727 BOEIl�tG 727 B727H BOEING 727 - HLTSH KTT � B733/4/S � BOEING 737-300/4(?0/500 B737 � BOIING'737 1t��200 SIIUES B747 BOEING 747 B74F BOEIIJG 747 FREIGHTER B757 BOIING 757 B767 BOEING 767 BA10 BRTTISH AIItOSPACE 125 BA11 BRTTISIi AEROSPACE 111 � BA46 BRITISH AII20SPACE 146 Q.65 CANADAIlt 650 DA10 FALCON 10 DC10 � MCDONN�"LL DOUGLAS DC10 DC8 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 DC87 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 70-SEI2IES RE DC9 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 DC9H MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 HIJSHIKT�I'ID EA31 AIRBUS IlVDUSTRIES A310 EA32 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320' FK10 FOKI�tt2100 FK27 , FOI�KER F27 (PROP) FK28 FOKI�2 F28 L1011 LOCKFIFID TRISTAR L1011 l�ID 11 MCT�ONNELL DOUGLAS DCIl 1bID80 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES SW3 SWF.AI2Il�TGEN METROLINER 3 SW4 • SVV]EARINGEN MEiROL,IlVER 4 SF34 S� 340 Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9 M,,etropolitan ,Airports Commission Runway Use - Day/N�ght Periods - All C)perations Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport March 1996 Daytime Hours Nighttime FIours Page 10 Aviatia�n Noise & Satellibe Programs �� .� Metropolitan Airports Commission Community �►verfiight Analysis M[inne�polis - St. Paul International Airport li�arch 1996 ' Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (11pm - 6 am) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 11 Metropc�litan Airports Commission Remote Monitoring Site Locations A�irport Noise and (�peration� iVionitoa�ing System Page 12 Aviatio�n Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commissio� . . . � . . � � , . . . . � � '� � Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ��;� s . . �� ::>; ::<::`��:e�:�': � �:„:.:; � . .. : :::::>::>::>::::>:;:::<: : ::;>:<:::>:<:::>::>;::> :: ..:.� .1��"� ....: ..............:�:>::>:��:°:>�;:>:::................... ...... .......:...............:..: ...:: .. ......:.: .:. .::..::....: .:...:...::::..:: :.....:.........�..::.:. :.::....:.::�:�:::... ..................�.:.. ::::....:�:�m��:::; ,.. . : ��::��':�+€�:�::;�!��€:::>::::>:::::::::>:::>::<:::<.;:;<::::::>:;::: <:;.:;:;:;>::::<:::;;:<:::;<:<:::>::::::�;>::>::::>:>:>��::>::>::;;::;>::;:::;:>::::::>:�::<;>�::::>::::.;<:>:::,::..;., :::>::>:>:::� : �`t�� : �:::::.:::;;.::<.»>.::::>:;:<<::<:�:: :::<:;€::>::;::;<:::::::::>::>�� ::>::::::::::>�:::::> ::::::::... .... :..�:::.� :. . .. ::.::::::: .::::::.�:::::.�::::::::.�.:��....�::::.: :.::::::::: :: :..:�::�?!::::::::::: :.::::: :.: :.::::.:: ::.::::: :..� ::.::::::::::::.:::::::: :.:::: ::::. ... . . . ::::: .:::: ... . . ::::: :.: :. .. :::::...:: ..: . ::: ::.::.::.:::.: : :. >::::<:>::>::::::>::>:::>::>:::»::»::::::»::>;:::>::::::::>;::>:::::>::<�::>::>::>:::;:;.::::::::>::>::>:::::>::>::>::»>::<::::»:::»>::>:<::::»:<:>:<::<:::;:::;::»<:><:L::>::»:<>:>:::»::>>:::�>� .. ::::::. �. � .......... ......................... ...... .. . .. ..... ... ....................................................................................... .... �.C�:�::::::::: :::>::::��::::>::: ::::::::�:�p��::::;:::: >:<:��:�R.i�d�:::>: 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 2037 26 0 0 2. Minneapolis Fremont Avenue � 43rd Street 1597 78 0 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street &. Belmont Avenue 2032 889 19 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1965 585 2 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 2136 1579 277 1 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 1736 1262 2Q8 0 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Street 41 3 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 17 0 0 0 9 St. Paul Sazatoga Street & Hadford Avenue 104 50 2 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Stireet 119 89 27 0 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 11 1 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Roc,kwood Avenue � 10 2 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Sout,heast end of Mohican Court 29 4 0 0 14 Eagan First Street & McI�ee Street 5735 132 0 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Strcet & Lexingta� Avenue 121 9 2 0 16 Eagan AvaloaL Aven�e & V'�las Lane 4466 ?A�79 36 0 17 Bloomington 84th Stre�t & 4th Avenue 114 66 12 0 18 Richfield 75th Strcet & 17th Avenue 109 58 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue Fi 84th Street 58 1 0 0 20 Richfield . 75th Strcet & 3rd Avenue 26 0 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Sireet 131 1 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2358 20 0 0 23 Mendota Heights Fnd of Kenndon Avenue 1409 34 7 2 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 3131 71 4 0 Aviatioai Noise & Satellite Programs Page 13 I�ktr�rnlitan Airports Commission , � • �;.� . �. � ,� � . . � .' March 1996 Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT � <::;:'��:;�2;1�G:`::��::::::`: ��;>;>:��>:<��:�::;�.:::<;:`��<:>��>::>::><;':<:::;�<:::::>:�::':::�':::::>:�::::::':>�:::>;�`<�:��>:>::::::<:::>:>::;>'::::<<:::;��:::;::>�::::;>::::::::::�:;:<�:�:::::'<::�::>::::�;�::;>:::�<':::::>::::::> ::::��:;;.»::::::;..',}<';`>::::::;:;:;< :::€:>;'`�<::::>':<�:::::>:>::::::::> `:::::<:�`�>�°:>::>:::::::;::;.:::> :::::::::::::::>>:::::.:::'::::>:::::>>��::::>:`>�: . �;:::: . ............. ..�;: ::;:: : . � . :.;: , .::: .::.:� ..� :: :.::::: ..:::i:y'i.: : .v . .. . . .:::i: i::i:: '. .... .... . . ..:i iiii: :. :.. ....:::......:.�:�: . y. ;::. ..,, ....:....:. ..�..:.....: •.::::::::::r.::s:::::::::�sXt�'%` i .... .. �i . ......... . . ..... .... . . :.::::.;:.;:.;:<:»:>::>:.::.:::::.:::::>:.>::.>::»>::::.:.;::::. : :.:::.:�:.;:.::;:>::>:::>:::;:<:.:: .: , . .. . .::::::.:::..............��.......:.....%?�1 .... ....�`.Y.. C� .:....... .. .:: :::::::.�. . . .::::.�:::. :::::::.�.�:::: �:.: :.. .. .::�:::.:� :::::::::: ::.:•. . . . . . . . . : ::.. : . . : :: :: .:::: :::.::.:.:�::::::::::::::::. ::::.�:::::::: :.:�:::: .:::::::::::4:::.�.:;: ::: :..��.+,;4?:�i3,�$:::: .::.:::..�� .:�::.::�.� :::::::::::.: . ::.::::.�.>� . : ::.::::.:�. :.�::.�.�:. .......... . ..� . .. :: . .. . .:::: :: :.::.:.>;::::::::::::::::::. :::.�::::...�.� :.::.::.>:;..;. .:::::::::::::::::.:>:.:::;.�>:.:::.::::::::::::::.�::::::: ....::..: . : :::::::::. ::::::::::.�:..........:�:.�'`..::.�.�:::::.�::.:� ......... . . ��::.�.�...��.��.��.:::: .�:::.... . .: .::::. :::::::: .. :.:.: .::::::::......::.....::... .....::::::.:: :.:::::: :.::. ::::: ::.:: . : .:::.�::::. ::.:::......:::::::.�:::::::::::::.�:::::........ ::.:::::: ��!..�:::::::::::::::::::...........:.:::::::::: :.::.�::.�::::..:......... .... .:: .. : . . ::.:: :....... . : . .:::: .::.�::.: . . .:.:: ::::::: : . :. ... ..�.�::::.�T.1F .:........ .:...:::::::::.�:::::::::::::::: ::.......�.�::.::.::::.�::::.�::::.::::::::............ :.::::::::::.�:::::::::::.�:.........:::.::::::::..::::. . ..... ...�: ... . ::::: :::.. . . ::::: :::...:: : . . . ::. :::::::.;::::� .. . !��t.::>::> :::>:::� . ........:.......... ...... .....� �� :::::::: ::>::: , : . : . �:::: ».<;::::::»>::>:«< ::::::::::::::::.::.:�::::::::::>:<�<:::»::::::::;::>::;::»::::::»::::>:::::>:::::>::;::::>::::>;:::;:;;:::;:::>::>::»:>:<::::;::::::>:::::>:::::;»:::::;»»:::::«::>::>:::::>::::>::>::::::»>::>::>::>:.......... �� ::::::: <::;: : : ..... . , :::.::.::::::::::::::...... ...................:.:::::::::.�:.:............... ....... ::..�.:_:::::.:..................................::::.�.:...................... ......::::::.�:.�.:....... ..............�:.:.: .....��1��..... :.:��. ... .............. ..::::::: ::.:::..........................:..�:::.�::...... ....................:.::::::::::...:..........................:.:::::: ::.............. .................::.::::... ........................:.. :::::::.................... .........��... .............. .......................:.:: .:.�:::::::: :::.:.�.�:::::: ..:�:::::.:.::.;:.;:.:;>;:.;:.;:.;:.:.;:.;:.:;<.::.;:.;::>:»::::::.:::> 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 862 295 3 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 721 208 6 4 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1558 353 45 1 4 Minneapolis Oakland Aveuue & 49th Street 1870 810 130 7 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th St�et 4982 2709 946 174 G Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 6583 3832 1985 530 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Street 1147 363 49 1 $ M�u�neaPofis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Simet 1710 S99 63 1 9 S� Paul Saratoga Street 8c Hartford Avenue 59 11 1 1 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Howdoin Strcet 187 23 10 3 ll St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 40 9 '7 p 12 St. Paul Alton St�et & Rockwood Avenue � 25 9 3 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1437 396 7 p � 14 EaSan First Street & McKee Street 2217 673 51 3 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexingtan Avenue 1324 488 40 p 16 Ea�an Avaloaz Aven�e 8c V'�las Lane 1820 721 124 9 17 Bloomington 84th Street Fi 4th Avenue 213 45 15 0 18 Richfield 75th Street Rc 17th Avenue 451 262 116 14 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 327 170 50 6 2U Richfield 75th Sireet & 3rd Avenue 189 35 17 1 21 Inver Crrove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 912 294 3 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 760 214 4 0 23 Mendota Fieights Fnd of Kenndon Avenue 1946 1134 � 528 66 �' �8� Ghapel Lane & Wren Lane 1021 136 1 0 Page 14 Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs ( ) � Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten I.oudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified R1VIT #1: Xerxes A�e. & 41st S� Minneapolis RMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Belmont A�e. Minneapolis RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. Minnea.polis RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St. Minneapolis Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs Page 15 Mctr�P�lita.n Aicports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th S� Minneapotis RMT #'7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. Richfield RMT #6: 2Sth Ave. & S7th St. Minneapolis RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. Nlinneapolis Paae 16 Aviation Noise Fi Satellite Programs C C � C ) Metropolitan Airports Commissia�n . � �, ;. . , � . . �; . . � RMT #9: Saratoga S� & Hareford Ave. St. Paul RMT #11: Finn St. �i Scheffer Ave. St. Paut RMB' #10: Itasca. A�e. & Bowdoin St. S� Paul RMT #12: Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. S� Paul Aviati� Noise Rc Satellite Programs Page 17 Metr�golitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft No�se Events Identified. R�1T #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court Mendota Heights RMT #15: Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. Ndendota �ieights RMT #14: 1st S� & McKee S� Eagan RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane Eagan Page 18 Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs � � .� Metropolitan Airports Commissian �'en Loud.est Aircraft Noise Events Icientified RMT #17: 84th St. & 4th Ave. Bloomington RMT #19: 16th A�e. & 84th St. Bloomington RMT #18: 75th St. & 17th A�e. Richfield RMT #20: 75th St, & 3rd Ave. Richfield Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs Page 19 '�tetrnPni;r� �� Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St. Inver Grove Heights RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave. Mendota Heights iZNIT #22: Anne Marie Trail Inver Grove fieights RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. Eagan Page 20 . Aviatioai Noise & Satellite Programs � C� 0 Metropolitan Airports Commissioai Fl�ght TraCk �ase 1VIap A:irport l�oise and t�perations IVlonitoring Sys�em � Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs Page 21 \ � ' p � q �+r � /��.r�� 1`i• • , � � �.. ..��. `� ;•r;.�� t , ... � .`►=,` R �,,,;...,�.. �},`��,a��Q'�l�Pta� : ,'�`\�\\��,'•/�� i � ��., ro y . ��-�\�\ ,�� I..,,.r �� ',�\ S�1� , ` � � :� 1`�� ,�� '� `�:.\1� � �� . ,, �~`�\� / 1�� . � �: � `, � , a�, �� , �� :iar,� . � �� ;�.� �:. �e;; � � `` �— .v !`��1��j%' �� ti �� y - �r �•� ��1' : . q� �� n'l� i11: : �i ��/��1��.�.. ,. . d � ��+ �1'� � i \ :r�, r�i . -..�. �� -: `�: �� I ,-,.�',.i�l►.,,,�'�,:+..+tr'� �`. < �-:.__,__•'�''i!r �`� ._ 1 I" �.��,.�„_'�►� � '�„_ � � 1— .\ i�.� �� .,%a.�s.•... ° '\\ � i...i �l_� r�/� � • , �.. f1j�i'.�-.--•�n�,'".i►U:�� \1` `��: `. �. �. � � � � ��`�\��►/I�I�Ii�� `� :.� �\\��11 �1 � ��\ .- .��`� �6 `� � � "�� .. .. �.. �,i� I . . .. • � // ' � ,��' ` \� 'i% . -- ��' �.� �� ' % i i �+ '��1 � ri . � , 7�,!�i-i�� w �.��-y` �1i/�1� ► ► ,: � n � ��7� `` � � �:a ' ' �y7��: � : ,� . ��, \�� `�� ` � ��. ' . � 1 � • "r � `�`� ,,`,'�) \,\` ` ` `` ` ,�� .. ��1��,� i.l lq�!'�.� -7- �� . ��.� �\'�'~ ►� �� S�\ � i � p�� C �\\ \ � 1 , � � �\ � \ .( ``\`' G,` 1`1\,`\\\\\ \� ��` � >� �. b , `) ��\��\�. `: : h � � �\�\p��yl ,. �`��'�/ `� �� ; �,''th1 ,,� ;�,� - — - '�` �,% ;�,�,' �� -"'"�s.�,,,�" - �,`�A/91�+ i �� lr r,'��iG`•� `�"cs` :� w � ��1��:��'+.� ""r- ,I'; 1 = - - . , ,r � �li : •. / /}, +/... 4� i� ,� �%/ pN/.�1 � p \ • �. (\ , ij� (► � � � 1�� . �1 ,�� ' � , ,'�ili � _ �1 � I.i /� .r� T . . - �+IiI ii � .. - ..\ i �� .I� � �;( a ' � � � ii� �11� � .. . ' � � �� i ��i �� 7 � � • c - � 1 .� �� '.'I��.. � �� `�> � .s�� = .r � _ ic� .: :"�� ..r►'T: �� , � . e �—ur'�`..,�� - ��1'►�\�►``; �. ! ,l►�►,�,�\�:�' � :;, t �-� � iE;,.,.. �,,,,,,��. � �'w. �� 1 ��-�1:� � � �l .� ��`�.!� ��\ � \ 1 �It. .. . . ... .2 . �\ ��'� ' ��. "`��`�`-��\ �~\t � it \ ��\�'�-\ :�.. �`• '\` . . \a\ �\ \\� � ; � - . ., i �� \ " � .�. \ '��\ � � `.. . ��\\, "�\ 1� � , l � ��\`��\1�\I� `�.•��' ��\\`f.�\�\�,�11 . � `l _ . . � � I -: .,,` ` . . V :"��. � 1 \. . . . � �`�.�\ � \ 1 ..��`�; \. � � �i�� \ �\ � ��1�.\ �� \� � � � y ' � �� `�`1�,\;` + ��'��i �� % i ��/�/ - .�` !"i. ��1 ��`•�• . •. �'r► " - — . . li, �'�"'..,.�1 . • x ' �� ` i r� Y . ``�11 ��,I� \�`�� . ' � � 1 � � . `\ �\ \``��`•' � . ' \� .. � �``~�jil� • \.�\ � �.1 �\,�\ _ � � '� �. ` i �1: �I7��. � � . •.\�, y ♦li •� � . \ .3 •:� ' . ,\ �•. .. _ . . _ . .. . . . _ . . . . � . . ... , i ' . ... 1� �; � � '�� 1 F M�� i�, � ��11� y r{, t�ii�� : � i� � .``�,'.'�� `1 � . �-.e'ij��`��,ylls ��' . \� ��` �� i\� a`�, '1 /i �� \�"�'�� C1' ��l1�� 11'' �P i1 � ,` \�►/c� � '�►' ..�\��iil��i �� ►/'.i l �\\` �,�' ' � �� i �� '__" � �:�` 1��-��'��i�.' �� `��`� i�� d��. '`y��.-'. �:�/ :�. � s.. . Ii �� % /��I•�� .� �� j � � �� _ � � � Nf � \� a ' t / V ` r i , j11�1� n �� w.�/% . �.: : � t i�„i.. j �: t o, i., . _ �,� ��`�/�� 'ti, - _ �,,o •S�� %��. � <; •► ! j,-;,': .. �. . . �� .�: ' ys. ��u � �►G i�: �'� � _�•:� i�//..� � �� I I� � �/-� .��\\ �` G��s.J'' -.+c�Cd��1� ... ..�+ -u/��r►., �i i^I��i►..�, �. � � \'` \11 \ :�, . - ' , \\ �\�. � `\ �� i \.\\\ � ,� . � .. �. ��. �\\\�� " •' `� \� � � ' � � ��\��i `�r�� • \\ �� - \\\\ , ``, . , �� \`� : r� \\�� ` r�i �•'ti ��z �� ; ,`,i 1'. .; .,w,��, . '. . . '�. �' �� Q\ '. r�� "' � i1 i\\�� _ �"' ..,...�j:.1�� —��c s ' � 1� �I '��`O� � >r � �,\ ri; 'r .�� •. �� . . .., i�� L._. _ . � . . . . `��,�`'. ��i�i4�� . .,. . � �, \ � �.�, �� `��I'�'� / �; ` � �� `'�% � � z;�: . > � I ,; � ; �\;; � . �. ,�. � �`��\; . . -�` � � `� . . . . . , : ;r, .. . • . ,.: � , .. �. i � ��'� ��I�� .: • \\�� '�C � �r .r r � 1 �� :��\ \►� � - \ ��\"+�+. 'r, � a�\\ �y'�\ �� \1�� 1�:\` ;'�`* \\I��`a_'�'� /' � `� �ei��`�j1i . I , �� -� ~ �'•�~��± . .. i� 1� �+ '.� ~ � ��. � � � � 1t��t�� \r w *: ij�(i� %� �I ��1►U\. � L . . t r'�� % b. / � . ` . c �. + '.� .•. . f� ' �. � �I. YL ' � ... �� . :/� �� . {1 ' ,, �� 1 1 : I /�� . � ; . � �\� � �r�t , � , .; t �r,, �i y.��►. � � � I ��,�.��'� rs � ' i'''' � +�r�� iti a�"" ,: r< �� t � i�ri.,�!`:'' � . %n;°� r��►`� ��...a _ � i.►r,;� �. }I► �. � ` �w��v � � �..,,� _ . . .. rr """ , \: �'.j . �.u.�'�� ` �� _�� : r ` r �J/�1.i�; �.`'!i.�,: � :�..= . . `..- 3.. � � ��: � : , =.�,.�j:�� ..� � ,: : �..�,�-.;�. � �� •��;..: ..� `-. .:�, � �\.. .- o '': ' �� 1�\ � ��\�� C ,�� -::\ •�� \ �`y � . � `� .. . . `'1 • �� `\��`�, D \ .• � �, � .. ; ';S•�w� �' . _I; \ `�� . �I �.�`►- � �� \ r ��' � � . �•� . ' :�', �:�� -'L� ` r \� ir � t� I f ''� � l�'` �`` ! . �I 'I / /�.'� �-�� 1�.��%I • %% �I �/ � � I//�✓y -� , ,/ i ►• `�� a �. ; u �. r i1�r1`� / �\ �`w � _ ii�,��l �.;�_�d�� , . . `1��'1// ,`�i+:,'•�//r, .• . r i� �. '?� �, , ,,,�% � , ' � `�,p`�� `f:{,'i _ a ` � . \` j . • sY `'; -r. � � iC � � iL.' � ' � j •f; � ' � . . t�<.. �,�'. .:r• , .Y . \,`',.. \.a;. . . . _ . _ . . . . _ . . .. . . . ., _ _. _.. . . .. . ` Metropolitan Airports Commis�on Analysis of Aircraft l�oise Events - Aircraft Ldn d�(t�) March Ol to l0�arch 31,1996 Noise Monitor Locations >�:':<:.�:�f'��'�>"�»`:;'':: ��:>;;::`'.;..'.`:`;`.:: >:;:::::''�<.>:.`.:;:;:,::;.,.'::,.;.,....;;';:'.::;::::::;:::.>::`.;<:::.`.:::>'';.:;;,'».':��::`::>: :<:��:::::::::..�.:.:...:;�:::::::;:>.>��:;'`�;;:;:::� ::::>::>�`�':�'`;�;'::�:: ::;::>:>�`:::::::;.:..`..:: <;;::::>�'>'�>'�}�:::>:: ;:��;:>'".:::;;<.::::`::: ::;:<::.>�.;<.<::;.:>'': . . �. e � :..:.:.::�.,�.''�..>::.:;. <:.;:::��.::.:.;:.:::.:::�:�:.;:.:::: .::.;:.::�.�.:>::; .::.;: � . ..:;;:. . :::.: :.;>: :.:::. : : :.:::.: :::.> �. :: :.::. � .... . �.:::::..�::;#`$.:.�:.::,:.�.::::::::::�.��..:.:::::�# ..:..�:.: ::: .:::::::.:::�::;.:::�::.�.�: .:.�:::::: :.:.�::: .>::.>::;.::> :.:..::. :.::::.�::._::.:�: ::.:�::::::::.: :.:: :�:.:�:::::::::.:.. ::::::::::::::::: :;:.:>:.�:... ............... .. .��..... ....� .... ��::: .......... ................. ........:.::::::: .:::::.�:::::::::. 1 59.6 61.1 62.9 68.1 77.1 70.5 68.2 66.7 48.0 42.4 48.1 48.0 2 60.2 61.1 61.8 64.3 74.8 77.2 70.2 62.6 525 44.9 53.3 * 3 54.8 56.0 5'7.5 60.3 69.5 74.8 57.9 59.4 47.1 47.5 45.4 * 4 57.6 60.0 65.8 62.3 '70.4 69.6 47.7 48.8 44.2 48.9 45.3 41.0 5 62.1 61.6 64.3 69.4 75.7 78.6 69.5 62.3 52.0 54.8 45.6 53.1 6 5'7.5 55.1 57S 63.6 74.6 77.4 71.2 63.1 50.4 50.2 43.6 * 7 63.5 58.4 62.6 44.4 74.9 '78S 69.5 64.7 44.3 425 48.8 * 8 60.9 59.7 602 63S 74.2 7'7.4 70.1 63.9 46.8 46.1 40.6 399 9 56.6 56.0 59.3 65.6 72.7 77S 645 60.4 57.7 63.7 40.8 40.3 10 59.0 59.0 65.4 64.5 70S 71.3 * 40S 62.1 66.6 4U.7 * 11 58A 58.0 66.1 64.0 71.1 725 * 40.2 64.9 70.1 50.6 � 47.9 12 59.4 59.3 67.2 655 73.8 72.6 * 40.2 53.3 61.4 52.7 52.? 13 621 * 65.6 67.1 78.0 70.3 *' 66.5 44.5 569 56.3 46.2 14 61.1 58.3 65.8 67.2 '79.2 765 * 66.4 51.6 55.6 46,7 � 15 58.8 59.4 62S 69.6 79.0 79.9 * 68.0 46.2 49.0 49:0 40.1 16 59.0 58.9 66.8 64.3 �3.5 75.6 * 57.8 58.3 57.7 38.0 * 17 58.8 57.6 65.6 66.1 75.3 73.5 � 63.6 S 1 S 40.5 46.0 * 18 61.0 * 63.0 68.0 77.2 79.9 * 66.5 48.9 50.4 44.7 � 19 60.7 * 64.8 66.9 77.9 79.7 * 65.7 55.0 58.2 53.� 44.9 20 57.3 5'7.3 62.2 � 68.5 76.4 79.8 * 64.3 59.6 66.9 60.5 59.7 21 57.3 55.7 62.9 66.9 76.1 78.6 * 63.7 49.8 46.9 40.5 * 22 58.8 58.8 61.6 65.9 76.6 77.0 * 64J 56.4 44.7 48.7 * 23 60.6 60.3 66.9 63.9 '71.2 71.4 * 48.0 48.2 49.7 48.0 42.1 24 60.7 61.2 68.2 68.2 73.8 '75.2 53.8 64.8 58.2 65.1 60.8 60.9 25 54.9 58.1 64.2 65.0 73.4 �4.2 60.4 58.6 62.0 64.8 43.7 * 26 56.6 57.3 61.4 64.9 72.3 75.9 � 60.9 * 47.0 41 S * 27 59.7 61.4 66.7 63.9 77.9 78.2 60.8 62.3 69.0 61.4 52.8 48.6 28 56.2 59.7 63.5 64.2 70.5 73.4 * 58.3 66.4 689 50.9 50.6 29 63.0 64.1 69.3 64.3 74.1 70.1 65.1 62.8 56.2 64.1 53.1 58.5 30 60.5 62.1 63.9 66.8 72.6 71.0 * 53.6 68.3 69S 55.2 49.8 31 61.6 59.2 70.7 62.2 73.1 70.1 56.8 55.3 70.1 60.2 53.8 65.3 Mo. Ldn 60.5 59.9 65.3 67.0 75.6 75.9 69.4 64.6 S7S 65.1 57.2 59.1 Page 26 Aviatioan Noise &. Satellite Programs *�ss than twenty four hours af da[a available � � �' i Metropolitan Airports Commissio�n Analysis of AircraFt Noise Events - t�.ircraft I,dn d�(A) 1Vlarch Ol to 1Viarch 31,1996 Noise Monitor Locations � `��Yi<aa!�[1;��:::f:`�� ::::.`22:<.:::)f::�{:... .`..,::::.::::.�': :��":? :::::::?..�::�:::::`�:�>;�`: ::::::> � ";:.:.::;`.::'::;'; ,::.:::::....r.`::;:::3��:: ';:'::`�•:::.�.�� ':�:�::� �:::��:....�:.�: �:`:.::;:::'? ::::::::�: �..'•:�:��.'�:y:' i:::;`:;:`.�::::::::;.'.;,' ,y`:;;::S:.i::£`'<:;::: ::::::'..."'..::':.:i:..:: ',:::::".:: `��` �`::::::: .�: :.:::::::. �� .::.:.:::��:::: ::::�� .:::. :::��.::...: :.��.::: .:::�� ... ��... .. �:::. :::.��..�. 1 49.0 63.1 52.5 68.4 54.6 64.7 66.4 51.3 45.3 61.1 63.9 62.2 2 * 63.5 40.3 70.1 49.6 73.5 57.7 68.4 � 58.7 53.3 62.1 3 45.5 66.9 51.1 67.2 57.4 70.2 68.6 59.3 52.4 54.0 64.6 62.1 4 * 67.6 60.7 71.3 53.9 52.8 * 47.8 57.8 62.3 70.6 64.3 5 53.4 64.4 57.9 67.6 49.9 51.0 * 49.7 57.8. 59.8 69.8 61.0 6 * 59.9 39.6 68.2 45.8 51.3 40.5 4?.4 41.3 56.4 46.4 58.3 7 * 61.7 44.7 69.6 51.8 55.4 54.4 52.7 40.2 54.6 51.0 59.6 8 * 63.7 48.4 69.6 59.4 69.3 68.8 58.9 39.2 57.5 56.4 61.7 9 43.4 63.5 60.8 68.1 62.3 '72.6 73S 58.4 47.3 58.5 62.6 60S 10 64.2 65.7 68.� 69.4 49.1 58.2 57.6 46.0 62.7 60.6 76.0 60.0 11 65.9 68.8 68.6 * 46.7 64.4 50.2 45.4 63S 65.0 76.6 60.9 12 66.7 67.4 69.3 69.1 46.7 58.0 53.8 35.1 66.7 63.6 75.9 55.1 13 54.2 67.1 55.3 69.6 57.'7 65.8 63.3 52.0 53.1 62.9 65.2 63.5 14 * 64.6 48.4 70.1 55.1 66.4 68.5 60.9 40.8 60.1 55.5 59.7 15 * 61.0 48.0 66.2 57.1 68.6 66.9 58.9 42.9 54.5 52.3 54.8 16 62.9 74.2 64.0 74.3 57.3 65.7 57.4 49.0 61.2 63.0 75.7 53.9 17 55.5 66.5 60.3 70.0 66.5 75.4 73.5 64.8 56.6 59.2 * 61.2 18 * 63.7 43.9 68.1 49.3 71.7 74.1 54.6 39.2 59.7 55.0 * 19 42.6 64.1 48.8 68.7 47.4 50.9 47.4 48.8 41.8 58.2 55.4 * 20 � 46.7 61.7 48.7 68.3 59.0 58.9 42S 50.5 42.1 52.3 51.2 * 21 * 59.8 39.1 * 59.2 67.4 64.8 62.1 39.1 51.6 45.7 * 22 *. 62.2 45.6 68.0 58.4 69.4 69.9 51.5 � 48.0 54.� 575 * 23 65.3 70.0 67S 72.9 70.4 76.3 59.3 63.8 62.0 65.2 76.7 65.6 24 49.9 • 69.2 46.8 67.3 62.2 63.9 * * 50.3 64.9 68.4 60.7 25 53.1 67.1 50.2 68.5 62.6 64.7 * * 49.1 60.8 67.7 63.8 26 59.6 64.4 61S 66.5 46.8 53.3 42.1 47.5 58.4 58.1 67.6 63.0 27 62.5 69.0 64S 73.0 64.2 63.4 47.2 56.7 62.2 63.4 73.8 66.9 2$ 53.4 65.3 61.1 71.3 50.8 60.6 57.8 57.6 48.7 61.2 66.0 66.1 29 65.2 71.7 64.5 73.0 63.4 71.3 56.3 49.2 58.7 65.1 72.6' 68.7 30 56.7 66.8 49.1 68.8 63.1 60.9 68.2 58.6 * 63.5 66.3 67.2 31 64.1 67.4 66.9 � 72.4 57.1 64.9 63.2 55:1 62.3 64.0 ^ 75.0 67.3 Mo. Ldn 61.9 67S 64.9 7p.9 62.8 69.8 67.0 61.1 60.3 62.2 72.3 65.3 * Less lhan lwenty four hours of data available Aviatio� Noise & Satellite Programs Page 27 `��►i\ \"'�.- �\ \ '�,�\' . � � � a�� ' �. � • i i . ��.� �" \\��''�.�\ \ :� "� �� \� �� \ . ' ��I�� ti'� "`�r'�r.� � . --._�`�``�..,.~v ``�\�� '��~\�� \�� \�\\\ \* • \ t � 1�� l�� , �.""w..�.._ �\�`` � ^ .�+�� \ � \ �\y �\�.'� � `1\ . \ . ,�`+..�� \'�� \ '�� \� � \�i � � �. ! 1 ��• �- =-""`��'—`\' ��^.`�\�.��\ �� . � � �. �, , . �� , � ' � . 1�" ..""`�..�'�� \\� � \ � . \ 1 � 1 � I o �. fr�.."�1►..��-'�i`', -.+� \ �` �"\ ��.. �. . � � � 1\ q. `'�— .�� .\,,,,\ \\\�� _� ' l � ' �. �1 �4. '_ `� \,1 `� \`��\ \�`��\� �.� �' 1 li � f \ Y. � �� _`\`\ ` =�\\�\�'\� ��\._�:� \• ; ��:r �� +�. it �� 1 `� \ \�� \ \ � I 7 � y \ � � � r~ �„ '` �.. �1�\�\� � \� � � � �.ti, e �r,'��`��.� r.� �\�� \\� ` .� �• ��... % ��"r►�'��.,�'�_i�� \`�.,`\\\� � ,`. _ .\ ♦ ' i �� % ►- '_.,,,*►,,,��, 1�,,,►��`� \\ � ` , .�c� �:�•� �,� �� ..�� "'��'�� `�� ; � � ,.r �"'�1��`_��'�.sfi` .\ .. t� �. . '��`. !�� 1 \\'i\ 7 , �',�' �-; �� ,�•>'`;'i`�►,i ' � ` y�., � � �`. � i� `\� `' in � �'!.� �� : `!t �� \`: �� 1� � \ , �`�,.�.��•�'•1��,� ,t {+7: i �� v� �//1 ,jl�%� / i , _"'.,�`�.,- w��.�� • � _—,��i'/��'1��,/:': � � , l� t� ��i � '`�� •.Z`j,� I� ��//�riiii �y' � �.r��j�: �./` � '� . t � �f I / � i '`.4 '� _ _ �l `� . %.-�a"'/ I,i . , 1r�-.-:• ��.\,,�� ..�� ,� ..,,�,,----.�- � ! �►�� }.i'�+�''.~ ;', \,��' �\: . _.w,�'�� \ i7► �:,' : . � i��,,a,.� ��,.`�,,,i►,`,/ ;�..: , r �-. '�'�.1��-//!'� i ►'� �'� � �. . � I "� �� >;/,il "�"�►�'�`��% • ��'►.-�../' %'!'�i '�,.�.� -=�J �� r.."`I�/ . . � `'ji`+-;--�►!'i'�'��!�� % � :�'.. . ` : . ; � �' ��I � � `� `: : � �i�..I"'��/�i�'��-``� l�/ ^� ' `-/,!/' � / '�./" ii' "� . . w—/��i�' � I / .. �� Ti""'...��ii� �^� . " ` \ � '�"'' `��- �.:` j''� • . . r�_ � ��-i �-^ .'�/,,.� , • . � .i .i :�-t '. I///''��'"�� p � . . ' .. � , ` ,: /, ,/ ,N ;,�. ..—,-.i„- �, ,�, . . . .� ;:,-��ir— i � • . . �� / . i% ii ' . � . �,� i�� '�%�� . � - . �. . � ' y t � . . � � �� . ��j/...��i:. : . /�� i..i��i �.� � ` ...♦ �� f � � r:�' ✓�r �� 'i % /// A , �4'::` � l. . �%i!.i i" . . ii �;i vi 1 .: , / ; ` . \ r� 5 ` �< •I . � �, / ' i / .,� ' i �'' . y/i/�� ,�+i� . �� //� � � ` V ; ; \ .. . • ' '• S .� � . �. � .�•. �.r �....,, •'%� i��,/i.�ii-..�.i�_ . �.\ .. ,��. . ,\��1.' �.i..'.�'. .. i . . . � . _ . .: . . .. . ... .. , _ �/ . . ._ „i. .__...... _ .. , l�fetrc►politan Airports Commission ' M` � Proposed North Boundary Corrid�r Gaie Penetration Analysis , Minneapolis - St. Paul Inte�nationai Airport �� March 1996 ( � �'� . � � 1��. � , � � �� .� �� . � �i '�' '�� . Page 2 Aviatiaai Noise & Sabellite Programs P � Metropolitan Airports Commission ' Minneapol°as - St. I'aul International Airport � . March 1996 � �� _�) � � �_ . � � ,, , , • , . . �.�. � . , , , 1'l,. , I � �� , / 1 � 1 1 1 ' 1 �� 1;, 1.i �/ i 1 ' 1.' 31 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT COUNT=31 (100.D�) RIGNT COUNT=O (0.0�) -61 DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) 0 Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs Page 3 �``�i �`� � �t►, ,��; � �� ;'�i � -�,` ` ti-. i ,\ i\:, : �; � �y,' j ,i1'• .,•��. `'�; i � i « � � � O F— �_ M— � � "� o O � O O 0 N . CS O O -6( � � ' Metropolitan Airports Commissio� Minneapolis - St. l'aul International Airport , ''t 3812 ... Total 11L and.11R Carrier Jet Departures 513 ... Carrier Jet Departures (1 . o) 5outh of Corrieior (5outh oi 29I.. Localizer) 513 1RACKS CROSSED P-GATE �EFT COUNT=511 (99.6�) RIGHT CO.UNT=2 (0.4�) ; ; i . ;e � ; , , , , , , , , , , . -----"'-----'-'-� . . � T""_"_'_..""'�l"'��"""""" � l""""""_ _""��"""' �""""' f"' _""' _ � ��"" i � ; , i � � � � � i t t r � � � � r � , � .��;��J��_��J��__��I��L�� I 1 � i ; � 1 � 1 � � � � ".e."0.'�"""""""' � i """"' e "w""""""' � � ""-�"""'_""'_""' "_"""' �""""""""" � """_� i � � 1 1 � 1 � , �• ' I I � � 0� 1 0 1 � 1 1 � � r !o oej ;o ' . � � � � � � , , -------- ----------� '�'--'�----" �'-O'-"--'----'---i-'--'-'-"'-----"r----""-"--'--'� R-"-'-" O Ji• r� e � . r""'"_ �� • • �~ e� ♦ • i � i � i i ,#�,� a ' ' ' ' � , , .. , , , , , •t�y• • ; e ' � � , � � � """" " ��!!.'.�.0""'�"""_"__""'_'�""""""'""''�"""_"""""_�""'_"""""' s ' s� � -�� • • ° ° e 1 � � • � esi° • � ; ; � O �•� e • i i • : + � i i � � � � � � '--"'--"'-'a.-"-"'-----'------' � � � � �-----------------�------------------ � � � �-----------------;----------------- � ; i i � ' . i i . � i i � � � � � � � ' � � � ' � � � � � "'""_""'"_"'r"""""""'"'i- i -"-'--'---"'- "'-""'-i- -�'-"--' -"'----'---'---'; "'-----""----- i i i i � � � � � � � . . � , � � DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF �GATE (ft Aviatio�n Noise & Satellite Programs Page 5 I�Telropolitan Airports Commission � Southern Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis r. Minneapolis - Sto Paul International Airport � IVlarch 1996 � 2e2% (82) Carriea� Jet Departures 5° South of Corridor (5° South of 29L Localizer) Page 6 Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs i Meaopolitan Airports Commission 1Vl�nneapolis - St. Paul International Airport March 1996 �_ h� �: 3812... 'I'otal 11L and 111� Carrier Jet Departures 82 .e. Carrier Je� Departures (2.2 0) 5° ►�outh of Corridor �5° South of 29L Localizer) 82 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE IEFT COUNT=80 (97.6�} RIGHT COUNT=2 (2.4�) � � -6 DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) L Aviatioai Noise & Satellite Programs Page '7 � r, � � � C� 0 � M � � � O H 0 � �'1 dQ� � � `� a �' � c� va" v, 0 0 � � ►;:; LJ . � 0 0 0 � C- ' � � C � rn o0 0 O O O � • • 1• ► r■r . • rn o0 0 0 0 0 ❑ � � rn o0 0 0 0 0 � O � r=�+ � N O v , • r .r rn o0 0 0 0 0 O � ., � � 0 F' � �C N � � � � � �n � O � G�� CD W O � � � t�r� 1, • ._ r ► � = � 0 0 � � � N O � _ �„� � � � e-t� � � O � �� CD W O � a—+ � � t11 r n j� C. r-- 04-08-19: 13: 05 f��502502 +��j i� �NER Gf �� HE t GHTS �^) , I P. 02/04 •� -i::- . .._ .. , -=.- -; ; ��, _ �, �� E�BT�NQ ffiTN�i1.'�B �a.rch 19, 5996 The N"orth�rn Llakota County &irport Relation� Coalition meetiag wae oalled to ordex by Inver C3rave Height� Repreeentative Peter Amieh t�t 7:3� e�.m. at �h� Snver Cirove Heights City Hall. The following members were present: Eagan, Mike 8chlax� Bunfiph Lake,' G�.enda 9pivgta� Mendota Heighte, Ke�r,ia eatche�der; Tnver prove Heights, Petez Ami�h, 8teve Hughes an� �G�ff li�iaos� Curt Gutoeke. ..: ..o�� . ' .,; ': • ._ ��ne i�ie�rtiobrB' pre�ent agx�e:�d ori the ageada ae, p��s��.��:°- i•'.• ,�■v�i� On �, motion by Glerida spioC�a, eeconded by Steve Hughe+�, ta apprc�►e ��x� •rniali3�Ea �f �'ebrua=y 20, 1996; � with �1�e aorrecc3:asi oi two typographi�al errore on page Z of the minutee. The Janua�ry i8, �.996, minutes were de£erred un�il the April NDCARC meetang. � � +�-�� '' 8teve Hughea (IaH) etated that �he Gi'�y Council recently requeeted their Btate Legi�latar� to introduae a bill in the 1996 seseion to require the MAC to achieve an equitable distribution of naiee �.Crose a11 communitiea that aurround the MSP airport. Peter Amieh (iGH) add�d that the ZGH Aireraft Naiee Abatement Commispian had requeeted MAC Commiesioner Louis Miller to attend n„d n+� a.�Q,.r �,oet �,�a�,: hpwpve _r. .�x ��d$11�r..,had -been 8 s�0 phow Qn three different occaeione. Mr. Ami�h 'alea etatied that the TGH Commie�Yon wiil be eetabliehi�ng new prioritiee over the next couple cf month� to refoCus its e�forte in the wake of the dua�. traak pxoceee decieion. Mike schlax _(E�ag�.n) ��id �:hat he thought tne MAC� a decipic�n to expand the current airport wae premature. f�ener�l diecuseion en�ued =egarding the MAC decip�.o� a�►d the p�nding Legielative bil.le to erid the dual track proceee. Mr. Schlax further etated �hat the Eagan Airport Rela�ians Commiasion ie.coneidering making a recommeadatian te their City Council regarding lend u�e peliciee and the�.r implicatioae to airport related i��uee. The City of � Eagar� is aleo lvcjking into pa��ibly spon��sring a vid�a �) taped �orum tn increa�ee awareneaa of a�.rpart noxee and what can ` �':.._ ��19tv c";��C7�?`'' j.�,- r.�,,.. caC'ti��."';.5w f�F:c�..'�4°�� l:��::�� }?�.V �°.'1^..�'�7.� �..d�".F'�+. '�f� il�et.�F?: �hi� a mul.ti-ci�.y e��iort. � � 04-08-1£ 13:06 :4502502 . .--_ ... INVER C~ �E HEIGHTS�. • ? P.03iO4 NDCARC Meeting Minutea - March 19, �996 Page 2 Kevia Sa�chelder (Mendota Heighte) etated their �ity Council hae nat take� a formal pc��itibn on the dual track procee�, however, he agreed with Mx. Schlax that to end the procese at thi� t�ime ia premature. Mr. Satohelder added that he believea Mer�dota Heights would be in f�y�x �� las� banking fax a new airport if certain trigger pointe (i.e., lev�l� ot traffic, delay�, etc.) are reached at the aurrent airport. Mr. Hat�helder conciuded eaying that Mendata Heighte ie absal.utely and uneguivocally oppoaed to a. third para11e1 runway at the curreat airpc�rt. . M��e� �a :W:x --:v�g�.: ; o::��. fi�a ��:cj�� cz ��:gar� `eupportp expar�eioii of the eurrent airpart provided the following thre� ��ond�..tiona. �r� «�4:�- ii 4iiiy' ezage ix'x airGr�ft ate='•iised, �Z'} �� ='�'�gnif3'cant inc=eaee in noiee rnitigatioa fundiag is provided, an& 3) the state would begin a eite aelection pro�ei�a for a new airport if future demaaade warrant tche need. ��.::�1�� Sp�.�tta (Sunfieh Lake) � ��t�ted that ��r i�i�y' ��use3�3 "ha�i�� not diecuaeed the a�.rport iesue in any detail. aad have not taken a po�ition with reepeet to airpart expa�.sian or relocation. Ger►eral di�Gtt�pion eneued regarding the uee of the MAC�e mobile unit for noiee monitoring. The City of Eagan hae ue�d thie uait to meaeure noi�e in it� Hawthorae neighborhood. � � ; ��, �: : : , :�►,, � . ,; It wae noted that con�truction 3e to begia this 8pring for the ��c�en�ion oi the �/�2 rurtway. I, �:y�; , • - y: � • �MM. , �l,1•,: : � aeneral diecuasion ensued reqard�.na th� cen��.ru��i.rari n� +�t+.� nA=,� nosctnjeoutn runway and it� future 'operatioa. Mike schlax indi��ted that the City of �agan �upperts a the nar�h/�outh ruriway coatingent on the three conditi.on� disaus�ed pr�viouely. Kevi�n eatchelder paid Mendota Heighta eupporte the northJ�outh runway and the IGH =epreeentativee indiaated that they have not di�cue�ed ��i�s ie�it�e� ii� dei��aa:l at ��hie time: `-�Thie iesue ie to be tabled untiil the next NL��,t", meeting. �- , . ,r . .;�. ,• _: _.• a •• - .� 1.. - -> . ,- Discuesion ensued regarding the MAC'e pae� n�gotiatione with the airlines and the commitmen� �Go iollow through on the r�ight-- time/ehoulder haur� re��ricCione, The membera preeent agreed that each city �hau�.d w,rite a letter to the MAC requeeting them tQ rc�tx�.cG tk�� t�.�� .c�n��tac�� IIZ ��rcr��.�� ks��9��n 1o:bo �..m. ana 10:30 a.m� F � � .... ,. _ . _ 04-08-19''^'13: 06 4502502 ' NVER G� � � HE t GHTS ^ NDC�ZC Meeting Minute� - March 19, 1996 Page 3 Mike Schlax etated that the P9AC �hauld be able to enforce euch a re�txiction �in�e �everal athex majes metxopolitan eirp�rtd h��ve even �tricter night-time noise requiremente. ; �• Kevin Satchelder �tated t�hat �his ieeue wae diecuesed at the lapt MASAC Executive Committee meetir��. The make-up of MASAC ie etructured to be S0� c�,titien/community repreeentation and 50� airlir�e �.nduetry repreBentation. Mr. Batchelder ind�.cated that �'.�,q Q's{ar;1�f�,� t'g . e�!:�Cl!i:'� tiMYY �J'Y'j.8f �� w' �'VLw7l�vM `+Ll'r ,.�C�ca,,t"i i..��.i.ijC t'Si giving 9uii�ish La�Ce a eeat on the oommit�ee, �however, _:this would �� ':.:.�:� - ..... ��dii..ii.V�ali.e. :....1�. 44 a�i� . �7iL"v.iseaC+tl .: t:Ci..'. ��Il� �].�11a't�.i �.ndu�try. There wad al.�o evme diecuee�.ori of deveioping s new make-up based on noiBe distribution. It w�e the caneen�ue of the membere preeeat to have thie iBeue �e��?t'�� :� _�;a::t me��in� ��r fssrtk�� i��•�a��i�n. - ;, •Z�+� _ • .i• : :: ;.�• ; . �:�.:�= ,M = Kevia Hatchelder indicated that the MAC ie required to develop a noise mitigaGion plan for t�h� current airpar� wi�hin x8p dayp afte= the dual track proceae ie complete. 8ince it appeare the dual track proeeas is very close to ending, Mr. eatahelder be�.�.eve� tha.e a.� the mo�t important iesue curren�ly fa�ing citfe� eurrounding the airport� Thie ieeue (community protectior� plan) ia aleo to be included on the April NDCARC agenda. f ;� r�K �: � ,; �> � ; � : The folSowiag meeting echedule was cor�firmed: a) � Apri�. � 16, 1596, at Eagan� � b) May 21, �.996, at Mendota I�eighte Th�Y'e be:iA� :�o �`urther bu�ineae, th� NJCAR.� ��atin� c��d s3�ourned � at 6:50 a.m. �,� �� w � t�� ,�� _�. ., . . ..._ . , -... � `04=26-96 01:33PM FROM CITY OF EAGAN TO 94528940 P002 . . , MINUTES OF TNE NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY AiRPORT RELATIONS COALtT10N Aprii 16, 1896 A rneetietg of the Nar�hern Dakota County Airpor� fZelaiions Coalition was held on Tuesday, Aprl 16, 1996 at 7:30 a.m. Present were Wif� Egmion of fnver Grove Heights, Kevin 6atchelder and Ai Stein of Mendota Heights, Glenda Spiotta of Sur►fish Lake and Mike Schiax and Jon Hohenstein of Eagan. Kevin Batchelde� agreed to chair the meetins�. �G�NDA The agenda was approved by acclamation. N�INUTE5 . Upon motian by Schlax, seconded by Eginton, all members vatinp in favor, thP minutes of the , March 19, i996 meeting were approved as presented. AIRPORT EXPANStON NOISE MITtGAi'!ON PLAN Hohenstein overviewed the MAC discussion regarding a noise mitigation planning group consisti�g af MAC rep�esentatives, Metropotitan Cauncti representatives and the Mayors of the affected ci6es. He said � � #hat the legislation conceming the airport expansion required the group to meet �nd prepare conciusions by this September. He suggesterl that citips ��tsid� of thP 6� DNL contour, which we�e not included in the group, rnake an effort to pa�ticipate in the meetings. The group discussed the effect af the le�yisiative acti�n on the airpart issue. It was notetl thaE it would acce�erate the constructian ofthe north south runway, ptace rest�ctions an the construction of a north parallel runway and west terminat wittiout tegislative app�oval and identify triggers for future pl�nning efforts if traffic levels are exceeded. 6atchelder noted #hat airpo�t opponents, including Dakota Caunty, short-circuited the dual t�ack process and that they were very well organized. He said that the 180 day process for the development of noise mitigation efforts is very.important. 3chlax stated that the prob(em was that no one in a leadership position. ever �eatly picked up the banner of retoc.ation. Batchelder stated that in retraspeet, Me�dota �' Heights would like(y have supported site preservation and conditions for expansion if the dual track process had fallowing its intend.ed course, Eginton asked if GPS and other technical improvements would increase capacity. Schlax stated that it requiras a change in FAA philo�ophy, but that John Foggia bclieves ths GPS will improve efficiencies and capacity at the airport. Hohenstein indicated that even if there is increased efficiency in the air, the time that arrivals need to be on the ground before departure can occur will also limit capacity �t the airport, The group determineci to place this item on the next agenda and continue its discussions of the issue. DEPARTURE �ROFE�ES Ths�e was a brief discussio� of departure profiles and it was indicated that people's perceptions af MAC presertfaiians �t the various cities differed. It was suggested that information to be received from HNN woutd be sha�ed with the g�roup to cla�ify the issue. 04-26-96 01:33PM FROM CITY OF E�GAN fi0 94528940 P003 . . . .� Page 2/Northem OaKota County Airport Relations Coalition �/ . April 16, 1996 GEOGRQPHlC POSIiIONING SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY Eginton noted that with increased accuracy, he sees a potential for comp�omise on flight t�acks over less poputated areas of Inver Grove Heights. The attected cities Indtcated thai they woufd work together to identify appropriate tracks as GPS becomes a reality. NEXT MEETING The next regutar meeting of the coatitian will be on Tuesday, May 21, at 7:30 a.m. at Mcndota Heigh#s City Nall. The next agenda will inciude continued discussion of mitigation activities and representation of Northem Dakota Caunty commu�ities on N1AC, Metropolitan Council, MASAC and other policy bodies. Schl� noted that Lou Mlfler's term ends In January of 1995 artd it was suggested that the cqalition ,_ . , gncour�ge ifs Councils ta`,suggesYrepresentatives�when that opetting occurs. � . � • , � � . ADJOURNMENT Tt►e meeting adjourned by acct�rnation at 9:20 a.m, JDH C , : . ; ; _ i �,. � ��L�1�1�1 I�. �� C� 1��3.�1V �EPPtiS SQ�tirq Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport � ', ��`��''� �2 t `� 6040 - 28th Avenue South � Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 • :,' ' �� ` r .� � : �` �, • m o Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 � �. �"°`"�� ` 5 �t p � t �, o N � o F . t �o 9� 41RPORty • ._._. . . , ... � .� • , � ,� .. ,, . .•: .•. . . • ., ... 5199� ��, p�R � � . .r "�!'� ;y+�-*„'�.::.. • - `�wr � f �,.... �°p��w,s �d� A MEETING of tlie Policy Advisory Committee will be held at the General Office of the Metropolitan Airports Commission MASAC ROOM , 6040 28th Ave. So., Minneapolis, Tuesday, i May i, 1996 at NOON. Lunch wiil be provided for PAC votinq members and the consultant team. AGENDA 1. 1995 Homeowner Survey Results 2. Update: Status of Insulation Completion 3. Update: Part 150 Program DBE �o�sadvar,taged s�s��ess Er,te�rise> Improvements 4. Update: Review of 1996 Airport �egislation PAC Members Advisorv/Consulta�ts Dore Mead Glen Orcutt - FAA Allen Lovejoy Steve Vecchl - MAC Tom Brown-MAC Jamie Verlirugge Sheldon Strom - CEE Larry �ee Mary Raasch • CEE Jon Hohenstein Pat Goodwin, Goodwin Communications Keven Batchelder Carol Kummer Scott Bunin Bob Johnson Richard Keinz If you cannot attend the meeting, please notify Jean Deighton (726-8141) with the name of your designated altemate. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN � C � MEETING SUIVV�MARY PAR� 150 LAND USE C()MPATIBILI�'Y IMPLEMENTATION DESIGN ��1� ii: ; :iG�i L'i� The meeting was held at the General Office of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Room. The following voting members were in attendance: Scott Dibble, Jamie Verbrugge, Kevin Batchelder, Regina. Harris, Bob Johnson, Richard Keinz. Consultants: Sheldon Strom-CEE, Mary Raasch-CEE, Chuck Rogers-CEE and Pat Goodwin-Goodwin Comrnunications. Asiyisorv: Steve Vecchi, Tom Brown, John Foggia, Roy Fuhrmann, Traci Erickson, Dan Pfeffer Cha.irman Johnson called the meeting to order at 12:10 p.m. �' A•ieport package was distributed to all'rnembers which included: Estimated Total Project �992-2001, Completion and Funding Summary 1992-1995, Projected Schedule 1996-2000, December Monthly Status Report, 1996 Project Schedules (1200 homes/12 bid cycles), Projected Funding Sources 1996-1997, Conespondence regarding the FAA Part I50 Boundary Block Eligibility Decision, Design and Canstruction � Tasks, $25,000 Cap Proposed Changes, and Duplex Structures Proposed Changes. PRQGRAM UPDATE Steve Vecchi reviewed the estimated total project of 8,867 homes at a cost of $153,400,000. Of interest, the workscope has been divided into three areas: (1) completed workscope 8,823 homes 1992-1995, (2) remaining workscope 5,368 homes 1996-2001, and (3) deferred hornes (4/22 mitigarion) 1,676 homes in South Richfield and Bloomington. � The completion and funding surnmary totals from 1992 to 1995 included 1,823 homes at a cost of $35.2M. $19.SM was received from AIP Grant funding, and $15.7M from Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs). The remaiiving 5,368 homes in (North Richfield South Minneapolis, Eagan and Mendota Heights) 1996 to 2000 schedule will cost $92,500,000. The projected funding sources are AIP. Grants $25.9M, PFCs $62M and MAC $4.6M. These projections are at the new accelerated rate of 1200 homes per yeaz which is a large increase over the current rate of 840 hornes uer year. If is important to note that one of MAC's concerns is to maintain •the 28% AIP Grant funds or at least $SM or greater annua.11y in order to proceed at the rate of 1200 homes. In the event AIP funding decreases, the Commission wants the option to recatl and review funding sources. As of December 1, 1995, MAC completed sound insulation modifications on a total of 1;447 homes since the program began in 1992. An additiona1547 homes are currently involved in either the pre-construction or construction phases. A table was distributed summarizing the number of city-specific homes completed, in pre-construction, and in construction. Mr. Vecchi called attention to the fact that Commission action is tied to the dollar amount - not the number of homes being insulated. MAC will insulate as many homes for $20.7M annually as possible. At this time, this is projected to be 1200 homes. Rising costs could alter the number of homes completed annually. � � :• �• • : • � • The FAA-Airports District Office concurred in writing an November 19, 1995, that all homes within "boundary blocks" defined by the cunently approved 1996 Noise Exposure Map are approved for sound insulation modi�cations using either AIP or PFC funds. This decision will remain valid until new Noise Exposure Maps are developed and approved by the FAA. HOMEOWNER ORIENTATION LETTER In order to keep up ttie pace of the "block-by-block method and to keep a continuity with the construction, the homeowner orientation letter will be worded more firnily regazding participation in the program. If they do not wish to participate in the program within a 2-month period after notification, these homes will be deferred until the very end of the program and only when all other homes are completed. C�E ADMiNISTRATION CHANGES � . � Tom Brown, MAC Part 1 SO Construction Manager, announced that Colin Carnpbell resigned from CEE. Mr. Campbell supervised the program staff, served as the primary contact with MAC, prepared contracts and budgets, reviewed documents/correspondence, developed policies/guidelines, and provided a wide variety of program-related tasks required by MAC. CEE and MAC are now in the process of selecting a new Project Manager to replace him. Procedural changes within CEE have been made to accommodate the accelerated volume of homes to be � insulated in the upcoming year. Design has been separated from construcrion management. This will allow the construction coordinators to spend more time in the field. Four individuals will perform the design tasks of conducting house inspection visits, develop design, prepare bid estimates, conduct design review, and wimess signing of the Work Agreement. A Construction Coordinator will review design, perform pre- construction walk through, daily monitoring of construction, conduct substantial campletion inspection, and conduct final inspection/closeout. A recruitment phase has also been on-going to get more contractors and suppliers into the program. Five new contractors have been added since spring 1�95. ACTION ITEM $25,000 Cap - Proposed Change Tom Brown relayed it has been identified that future project azeas contain larger housing stock which means a greater number of windows/doors, larger square footage, and greater existing mechanical systems. Two other factors are: the effect of inflation since 1992 "Pilot" yeaz, and the continued responsibility to achieve 5 dB reducrion goal (regardless of house size). A proposal was presented to establish a new $30,000 Cap: * will only effect a minimum number of larger homes * will n�t ha.ve a major effect on overall project costs * will insure S dB package goal * staff will monitor designs between $25,000-$30,000 2 � � It is estimated that only 5% of the homes will run over $25,000. Also, there is a competitive nature in the bidding process which will assure the rightful contracting price. It was moved and seconded. to establish a new $3Q000 cap as presented above. A vote was taken and �nanimousl,�passed. ACTION ITEM Duplex Structures Proposed Change '' Tom Brown expiained that a duplex structure shauld be done as one project and shauld have the same General Contractor, the same construction warranty package, and the same products (window, door, etc.). A proposal was presented to establish "Duplex Structure" as a single construction contract with a$60,000 cap: * uniform construction and products * simplified. construction management * reduced paperwork .._ . -� ._,� . �-� . - .� � � - � - -� ... : . - � . �. -� OTHER ITEMS Steve Vecchi introduced John Foggia, Manager MAC Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs and his staff: Roy Fuhrmann, Supervisor Aviation Noise & Satellite Progan�s, Traci Erickson, ANOMS Specialist, Dan ;� � Pfeffer, GIS Specialist, who technically support the Part 150 Program with the Geographical Information System for block prioritization, interface with the FAA, and generate ANOMS flight tracks. Prioritizing by block based on real noise events is unique and extremely accurate compazed to all other U.S. airports. Mr. Vecchi relayed that in the near future a block prioritization map will be printed for each city. Color coding will depict houses completed and houses eligible. The meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: � Jean Deighton, PAC Secretary Addendum to Minutes of the Policy Advisory Committee meeting December 19, 1995: � Two weeks after the December 19, 1995, PAC meeting, staff learned of an eacisting State of Minnesota law prohibiting projects utilizing certified general contractors (restricted bid) to exceed a total cost of $2S, 000 per project. Only "open bid" projects (available to any and all contractors) are allowed to exceed $2S, 000. Since the MAC Part 1 SO Sound Insulation Program "cert�es" all program general contractors, requiring them to meet stringent insurance, bonding and licensing requirements, MAC is restricted by state law to maintain the $25, 000 Cap. . Unfortunately, items passed by the PAC on December 19 in reference to raisir.g the Cap to $30,000 and increasing a duplex structure to a$6D,OQ0 joint Cap, , , cannot be approved: , � � . � 4 r _ � _� � � � � Ii�IETR01'OI.I'I'�l�T AIIZPOIZTS CO1l�IMISSION ,,�-�5 S4,ti, Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport t q r� 1- � �iQ��) -'�iitll f�l'enue Sotith • Minn��apolis. �.1�t 5��:)n-�%�i� s � T.� o Phone (61?) 7'Lf-8100 • Fax (612j 726-6�9f - at ,, +n ( � ) o �, ° 2' 0 0 . q 1- G N "�'RPOPtS . l' � M E M 0 R A N D U M v� T0: MASAC Members �,$� �V 1 FROM: David Dombrowski, Deputy Executive Director Labor and Governmental Affairs DATE: April 23, 1996 SUB�TECT : 1996 Legislative Session The 1996 Legislature adjourned on April 3rd after a three-month session. Legislation affecting the MAC includes: 1. Airport Planning/Bloomington TIF Bill: Chapter 464 a) Bloomington TIF District Transfer: - authorizes Bloomington to transfer a pre- 1988 tax increment financing district from the Kelly farm site to the Met . Center site b) Metropolitan Airport Provisions: - prohibits MAC from acquiring land for a new major airport - requires MAC to prohibit use of non-stage 3 aircraft at MSP after December 31, 1999 'Che hte(ropu(itan Airports Commissiun is �i� �i!'firmaiti�e ��clion emplocer. K��lic�:cr :�irpnrls: :11RI.AKE � A\Oii:� C:UUti'fY BLAItiF. � CRYS"fAL � FI.YI\G CLOt �D � LAKF. ELtiiO � SAt�T I�AUL �<)6L'\'I'Ott'\ � ; Page 2 � c) 0 requires NlAC to develop a plan to clirect traffic to re].lever airports • prohibits the MAC from constzucting a replacemen� passenger terminal on the west side of MSP without 1Qg�islative approval � • requires the MAC to enter into a contract with affected cities providing thr�t the MAC will not build a third parallel runway • requires a report on the env�ron�ne�tal effects of expanding the airport to accommodate 600,004 to 7S0,000 operations per Year • • requires the M�iC to report by February 15th each year on the operations and �equipments at the airport, delay times and technological developments that affect aviation • =equires the MAC to spend no less than �185 million from 1996 to 2002 for noise mitigation and property acquisition • in addition, MAG shall ineulate• and air condition four schools � in Minneapolis and two schools in Richfield that are within the 1996 LDN65 contour. • =equires the MAC fio develop a noise mitigation plan as a zesul.t of North/South runway construction • =equires the MAC to contract with the U of M to p=epare mn aviation services and facilities analysis Aircraft Noise Impact Relief • establishes an urbera revitalization and stabilization aone 9.n a=oas impacted by noise C / , _ � Page 3 • authorizes cities to establish housinq repl.acement di9tricts o expends the valuation exclusion fo= homestead property 2. Omnibus Tax Bill: Chapter 471 a) Receipts from aircraft apportioned ba�ed an the proportion of landings in the state to total landinge (NwA planes that are le�sed will no longer be fully taxed in Minnesota) b) Ai=flight equipment sold to airline compani�s is exempt�from the sales tax . c) Holman Field property detachment from city and schoo2 district, thus exemptin�r that p=ogexty . from the city and the school district property taxes. This sectioa gives the same exempt status to Holman as MSP. d) MAC Revenue Bond Authority • revenue bond authority is granted to the MAC effective�August 1, 2996 3. Noise Mitiqation Spending Requirements: Ghapt.er 320 The current passenger facility chargQ revenue amount percentage (40�) budgeted for 1996 wi]1 be used in 199� for noise mitigation 4> MAC Pa=kinq Policy: Chaptes 378 • f=ee parking generally prohibited exceptions: � employees and members of MAC at the terminal on otficial business • citizens attending Cornmission rneetings a= volunteers ,;; � , s ' Page 4 • parking cards must have expiration d�te of one-year a£ter issue • expired cards mu�t be returned • MAC must maintain a record of who r�ceivos free paring at the terminal. • all existing cards expired on Ma=ch 26,.1996 5. Metro-Wida Public Safety Radiu. $15 �nill,ion App=op=iation + The bonding 'bill includes $15 million to - assist in construction of the backbone of a met=opolitan-area public sefety radio communications system.. This will allow all met=o public safety personnel to communicate through a ccmmon radio l.fnk. 6. Regulation of Deposits of Public Funds: Chapter 399 ' • "Government entities" include pub�ic corporations i.e., the MAC • Investments of public funds are regulated eil�.s That Did Not Become Law Changes to the Met Gouncilc elected bo�y . Targeted group purchasing prefe�rences Legislative Audito= jurisdiction - vetoed Municipal tort liability 1Environmental taxation: MAC permit fees C MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TOPICS OF INTEREST - UPDATED APRIL 10, 1996 1. Non-Simuitaneous Departure Procedures. 2. Global Positioning Satellite Technology (Implemented 1995-96). 3. Phase Out of Noisy Stage II Aircraft. 4. Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations. 5. MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Planning Issues - Expansion of Existing Airport. 6. FAA Airspace Usage Study. 7. Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues. 8. Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update and Related Land Use Controls. 9. Naise Measurement Issues - Usefulness of Ldn 65 Contour and Equity of Current Runway Use Sysfiem. 10. Noise Measurement Issues - Usefulness of Ldn 65 Contour and Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations IVlonitoring System (ANOMS). 11 e Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure Over Minneapolis. 12. Aircraft Engine Run-Up Noise. 13. Equity of Current Runway Use System. 14. MSP Mitigation Committee. ' j ` __ C C �� : ► � ' __ G ► � ,:, � � �� issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: implementation of Non-Simultaneous Takeoff Procedures Which Minir�nize Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure Action Ste�s�. 1. Review previous MAC representations on issue with City Council. 2. Draft letter to MAC requesting update on revised non-simultaneous takeoff procedures - invite Mr. Hamiel to upcoming ARC meefiing. 3. Depending upon response, chose appropriate means of advocating rapid implementation of new procedures. ;..:.:j;�..;�...x:::;�.:::j��:j�::�f<,:.;.:.;:;:t:>�.;::.;��..:c:t.:>=�:.:.;�.:>�,:::::�y;i:�.;, ;< x,,�}{.,,.:::;:(.:}:.;h::.::�((':;:� .:(.:}::[ :;�.:>��<.:p<::�:::::<.::<..,.:::::: �;v,. ��:!}��];I.li4;:•i�:Y�!!�:!�;!��.'��;.:;i1��T��F:3:Q{.:i�:VR��iY:Y.�;��:i: t.Y.�:Y: 1 rV� Staff/ ARC Staff Staff/ ARC When Completed Completed Completed C C issue: Goal: .'. i. �' '_::� � � � ► Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Adoption of "Close-In" vs. "Distant" Takeoff Procedures to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights. Action Ste�s�. 1. Review FAA requirements with City Council. 2. :�;1C; �F: :C/;K: Who W- hen Staff/ Completed ARC Continue participation on MASAC Staff/ Completed Operations Committee which is Council currently reviewing issue. : x:..>::::::::::y�.;;�:.;:::::;:::.;:;.;�.;:.;:.;::.:>.:::::�.;.::.; :.::::.>;�.::>>::.:::;;:�.;:�«.;:.:;: :.:;.;:.:;.::.::>:::.::.>;.;�.:;�:>::.;�: ��: ::. ::::>�:} ±: �c��:t;c�::::��:::: :: ��r��r�::::�:�ul�: ��t?�:� '.��. #��...��....��.�.. ::.:::�y.: T ......:........................................�............................................... ............... .............. ��:��:�:�:�I:y: :!��11; : ;:.;;��.�.::.:><:::::� ��;::.::>:: :: ::: .:: .:.: : : �:�:�fi : �.: .;� :.:� ::. .;:� �.;:.;�.>:::.>�.;:;:;::: :::.:;:::;�:;�.:;:_:..::.:;�>;:,;:.;::,.::��:>:�:> : �:: :: ::. . ;:;.:: . .;:: :I��I:�4��::::�� ;��`t�:<:��#m��:��:::;:��::::;�1:��; ��:.>.:�::;.:.;..� .....�:....:... v :::::::::.::::::.�:.:.:n.�.:.�...................................................................................... .............................. .............. ��Q�1::l.�1�. �.:ti::A"1��{::��:�7:��.�'.dik�]•:�t `::•�3:%��4:'.'��'a� ...........::::::::::�>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::.�::::::::: �•::::::::::::::::::::�,.:::.�: i:•F¢iii:4iiii::tia.}i:4:{::::v::?; ..?:it{y{�}}'f'..:i:niiiiiii::•i::•i:::::::•:tixi'i:.:Y:•}::: :::v :�I i?�. ::: �::z'.�'� ��:'f r� • :::: �{�::>:�i:�:t��'�f.��'�€: •::>�•.: : �: .. < :�':�..�.�. :�:��.�� :::::::::: �:::.�:::#�.::::::.�::::�.: � ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::.��#::...... ::.....:...::.........:...::. 7:;,�-i..t,:ii;i;m�.,��,',i�,;�� i,.F:3;:;;�sF:::::I.V,:I;i/`%iz;L; c:� ; : ::�i�:;:i} ��•��;#�� E,i�� ': �� '� . . :��.�i'>:f:::`:�..:�::�'3EE:t��'i�;;;...::�.�•��:<:>�i��....�:. .....�....:.... '..�}.��.....� ............. •.�::::::::::.�:.�:,...�.�,....�r.�..� :::::::::::::::::::::...'�"'�...: ��.::::::::::::::::.�::.::::.::...::::......... .............................. ::�.t�;::�:e:'::�� ;`: � ;::.:>y��:a.�..;:.:::>:.::::<:;� .:/.;y:.: :.:;::.;>;:::.>,::.:> :::::.:::. .:.::.;>�.;::::::::.;>�.;.;.::.>::.:>��::..;�.;:.:: :::: :�:�i�'::;'� �+� .>:r��:::<#��u�: �::> �.�:'.��t��`�>:::��:>:��: �d;: :��:�A�� :::::::.�::::::�.:::;T{� :::::::::::::nY::: �.:�y:::::::::::.�:::::::::::.�::::::::::::::::::�y:::::::. w..�.:::::.:.......:......:. +'�:«: : °.�.'�.,*.i�l�:::�!'.�.�',�.� '� ��'1':�..��`:'::s�..�',��..� 1;�.`.�:I�..'•.:'C.{�'r.�:�;� :::.... ::....:............:..�................�..................... ;• •.>•:.>,.:.:::;::.::.::>::;;:.>::>:.;•.;•;.,;.;::.::..;•.;<>;•:::::>::.:•;::<:::.;::.;;;:<.•::.::.::>::;•.::.:•.::;:.:.,>:.;:.;:.;:.:::.:::.>: �;: ... `�'''�'*'',I�?lf••.:;'��::>,�..,.',,�$��:1;��:;::��...�'..F„�,�:;�`�;�l��;�;�`:€�;I'JEk�;;�;��` ..... .:•::.:•r:.;<.:.>;:;<:r� �:>•;:::: •:: :� ::`:.:�#;�>�•:•%�•�:<: :::: ..:;: ••;>r ::::;: � ��r�rr`i�i��?��:c��;:;��:;::l�ll:�:�::::a:r`��:;;:�:.�:�k�: � 1 _ 2 �•T}!'!:�I: �}�� C ` : ► • '-_► � _ ��►] Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights Action Ste�s�. 1. Review previous MAC representations on issue with City Council. 2. Research nighttime flight restrictions imposed at ofiher U.S. Airports. 3. Depending upon findings, prepare request to MAC for adoption of more stringent requirements. �::: � 3 Who When Staff/ARC Completed Staff/ARC Completed Staff/ARC Completed ��>:; .................. ��r��il ��:� .............. ��:�� i ►_ � _�: ' _ � � � ' �_ � Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Produce and Distribute Informative Refrigerator Magnets Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complaint L.ine Action Ste�s�. 1. Investigate costs of magnet production and distribution. 2. Commission to review design. 3. Order delivered to City Hall 4. Magnets distribufied to Council and ARC. 5e Commission to review final letter and news release. 6. Magnets distributed to residents 7. Additional magnets available at City Hall upon request. � Who When Staff Completed ARC Completed Staff Completed Staff Completed ARC Completed Staff Staff ��:�� Completed Completed C � C Issue: Goal: � ■ � � � i1 � s � Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information Actions Ste�s�. 1. Expand mailing list for ARC agenda to include State Senators and Reps. 2. Mail letters to State Senators and Reps Introducing ARC 3. Invite guests to monthly ARC meetings (i.e., Mr. Hamiel, Mr. Wagoner, State elected officials) 4. Expand coverage of air noise issues. �q�4 }�l[[�^y,s}.��1!{� :y�::t,.>:;':�:�::!;:;:i:i:y.::}.:,:r:i.y:;•>:.:i�y:!..yy'•:::' :;,'yy•:.{�.:,vj.(.>`'�:..:�::{..:�.::y.:a{:.:.::.�;?•y:::a•.:�::y:�:{:.y::��:.�: :y:�•:y;. :ii.:Y: :� .3'-l:Y:3J•+t.G::{,�il.�i:y�:::: u'.;Q ' �.T..:-i��:.T!i,i:;:::�:;k#:f2,��,.T'�I�::::�1%f7X:R,,.3—',f,l,'J„ v::::: .�:.::.�::nn .:........::........:.......f :..:.�.................:.:.......:::.............nnn::....... N.:4ii'•:•': :. .yv .�I.'::•i:'�:{:.::•::::i:•ii'..'f.:•i:i ............... ��:1;:<:�'1:�::::��;�.;>�:; ��r��:�:�t��` ::;.>::;:..X:.;:.:::::.;�.;;::>.:.:�.:..;;;.;:;>:::;�.<;� >:>:::>.:.>:.;:.;�.:::.:;;.;;:.::.: :�:�': �i��t�r��:�::::��>::��:c:��:<: >:��:::::r�.��:�<::�i�: :...:.. ....................................................�............................................. �:'`:�;��',:>�i;:��:��:�::::::�:�:��:::::��t��"�::>�i:i'i:� ::: �:.::.�:::.�..:.�..::.::..� ....:....:................................................ :I��p�y: y�/� y��y,y� Kr:}:��.......cyy:'.X• ±:�:�y:}:/:��::::j:�.:':�.�:,(.,.�,.:::::: ••.%=yJ. }�(j'?;■�j'� :-�•1: ��L:4:4:I�iAY::::�[F•::::�•Y•�.T.•.�!;:::i:il:i�:T4� �' ��•.T.��::y .�. V;fl%;:{�1#:; ::::::. w ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.•.v..............::::n....�.:. `� - - �.,C�'(1-F- . (�c�+'1� c.� ��/1..,t c� i� v�l �l �JCJ�I-�2 c�-- � Who When X ..:.:::::::::::::: Staff �c��i��rc�€�� Staff Continuous Staff Continuous :��r�� Staff Continuous �� `:fi��€��>"': .............. ..................:::::�� ............... ................... ;�.;:: :;�:.;;,>:.;;..;: �<::.:;.:<.::: �: �`a� ��r�€t��d�� ::::�.:::::::. .................................. ................................. `�. : ��'�'�`.:�� :.... � ............. s-��, I��- C C C� .'. i: � ' � � �, � Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Appointment of City Resident to the Metropolitan Airports Comrnission Action Ste�s�. 1. Review current distribution of MAC Commissioners with ARC 2. Prepare letter to gubernatorial candidates asking for their position on MSP expansion, corridor use, MAC representation 3. Discuss City concerns with our current MAC representative 4. Monitor gubernatorial election ��'jF . ::it:(:�:.:>/��<:j<;�;�:}!�:�:.::>;.;�:{:.;:::<}.::�:;/: �;{;/«y:::.;;:«:.::;:>':�.;�;::(:x}:..1�;y:.:::::��fy��:..Z�t�";.�:j;�;L"=�:'>/:�.;,,;.;J� .�1}��(�«::y::�<;,.�:j.:::::/:�::>;:�;4�.: :Y.:l,t: i�1.`f,.1,.L:t,�RJ.lR�:::}'f��:;l:{,:tl:e��::i{}FY:i�F;i:::�i!F;I;Q:M.,%J,.::ii'aI,.�1;tG1�V�1,'J„ ...... ...........:.:.:.........:.:.......:.:.:.:............::.:...........:.:....:.........:rv.......:.:............ niiiiY•:#':ii'ry:n:ii:Fi: ::•i: iiiiiY•i%n`:i:ii::F'i:AS^ii :..��x.�«: �4��:.��`�:::::��..�..�..�.::::�?�`��t�::::�::�.>:::'��`::::i:�#r.��..� ....... .............�..........................................................�............... ......... ,:......... :�z�::�>;>::: ��';:>�:�i��;��r��:�i�t�� 7. Review MASAC representation and MAC represenfiation with Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Commission. � Who �Nhen Staff Completed Staff Completed ARC �� ARC/Staff Completed Completed C. Issue: Goal: a � i � ' � � : � MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Prevent Construction of Third IVorth Parallei Runway Action Ste�s�. 1. Update Commission on status of MSP LTCP Study 2. Continue participation on MSP Technical Working Committee 3. Respond to public comment request Draft Alternative Environmental Document for MSP 4. Retain experts to assist in efforts to prevent the designation of the third north parallel runway as the preferred MSP expansion alternafiive 5. Respond to public comment request to Final Alternative Environmental Document for MSP :iJ �4 � / • Pursue MAC contract on the prohibition of third parallel runway as per 1996 Dual Track legislation. 7 Who When Staff Completed Staff Completed Council/ Completed ARC Council Not Applicable Council/ ARC �� c�-�-c�-� I C.U�xl�C'j � Completed Issue: Goal: _ � � � . . • _ �L�]� Conversion to Stage 111 Quieter Aircraft Assure Conversion by Federal Deadline of Year 2000 ,Action Ste�s�. 1. Review NWA obligations to MAC regarding Stage II phaseout and research fleet mix at various airports around the country 2. Prepare letter to MAC regarding ongoing contract talks with NWA to request inclusion of language specifying phase out date 3e Work with MAC Commissioners who are supportive of effort to help build consensus amongst MAC 4. Letter to NWA asking for their cooperation in committing to Year 2000 phaseout 5. Prepare media news releases and information letters explaining issue and asking for letters and/or calls to MAC in support of contractual language. ;�:�; E Who When Staff/ARC Completed Staff Completed Staff%ARC Completed Staff Completed Staff Completed .�. ' i � ' ' �_ � �'. � ' Issue: Noise Reduction Through Litigation Goal: Determine Feasibility of a Legal Challenge to Current Air Noise Distribution Action Steus: Who When 1. Review history of legal challenges Staff/ARC Completed related to air noise 2. Investigate FAA procedures in Staff Completed - effect at time of 1973 corridor decision - Freedom of Information Act request? �;: � �� C C � i ► � ' ' � � �_ • issue: Assure Installation of Sound Insulation in Schools Affected by Air Noise Exposure Goal: Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation Action Ste�s°. 1. Meet with school administrators to discuss need 2. Analyze MAC School Noise Monitoring Study 3. Continue to monitor changes in the Ldn contours and monitor the Part 150 Sound Insulation program completion process. �K' �:'.::�:�:�:� <':i��:�'::;�:i:�:��i:>_.:,�': �l�l:�:�::�:'1�11'i..�'' ��r�� ....:.?� ...:....::............:...:..�.:......::....:..:......:.....:. $.:......:...:: �'y .. �,{�.�y:;.�;.;...........: i:.•.ti3:J!��L:4L��X; l<J Who Staff When Completed Staff/ARC Completed Staff/ARC ��1��:�� ,i 1 1 � � .1 p Apri18, 1996 To: Airport Relations Commissioners �.,,.-- 3 From: Kevin Batchelder, Interim City A � tor Subject: Discuss Mendota Heights Air Noise Plan of Action The Commission cliscussed the Air Noise Plan of Action at its February and April meetings, includi.ng all the six elements of the Action Plan. The six Acti.on Plan elements are: 1. Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures 2. Heighten Awareness of MH Air Noise Concerns 3. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan 4. Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft Fleet 5. Noise Reduction Through Litigati.on 6. Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation The Commission has made a number of cha.nges, suggestions and additions to the Action Plan and staff is busy incarporating these changes i.nto a new draft. It is hoped that this revised draft will be prepared for presentation on Wednesda.y evening. The Commission should review this draft and begin their discussion about presenting the Airport P1an of Action to City Council. , ; � . � �. ,�, Acknowledge the presentation of the Air Noise P1an of Action, and provide sta.ff with direction for prepari.ng the fmal draft Air Noise Plan of Action. � � '• ; � • � � � � � ''• • • r, �� ' -r; , -� ' � - � • - • . - • ' � - • • � . • • ' • - � � r '� r .�' � � � I.� �. �� . � ��'. � � � : � I� � � .�� .. � ��. �r _ . . • ��. �:�� i � . � ' '� •� ��. �.� �•�: �� •� -� �� . � • '�. � . l� ' �.� ;: � '.�.� • • �• � � �: � •� •� � � .�` � �� ' � ;�� :.. � � � � • , � . ,.� ,�. • '.. , ., + ' �. . : � � ' • • : � . � , ...: /. . .: .. •. � , �.. �' � • • •' �� ;� � � .�.� ,�� .• �, .♦. �• . .�. � .., , : .y � . • • � � � • ' , ' � � �'; '`� � � � • • • • . �' • � • • ' " • . ' . : t'-' 6e iVoise tVlitic�ation Thro��!h Sound Insul�tion � .' � • • • • . t'' --�`-�-------- -�--'- , �_: " �, ;� _�_• , _ 1• . .• �-�. _ . ,� _,� _ .• • '- . - • � . . ' •, - � � �� • :��. � ��.•: � � �� I :�.� �, r �.'. "�� .. •r .. � ... � . . .. , . ,�: .•� • .... . �� •�.' � � '. �. • ... • ... .�� ..��. • ...� � �' ,. �. . .. ��,� � •. ��. �� :� • I � � ... , �� . � ' .•. : �. '. � . . . ` , , �� i 1'. ? � � .--..-._ ;; . i: �. ' . ` . ,' • � c•-• t?�}. : t • � : . , � - � . � . � . • � :: . • ` : C •:+s '�f � � • � , � ; . , �. , . , � � ; � ' � � A) Action Plan Development Process B) List of Possible Topics of Co�sideration C) Actiom P1an Elements: 0 �� 1. Noise Reduction Through Modified. Ta.keoff I'rocedures • ��r'-rr-� .�� • •r �� ,�-� ,,-� , • _� � � � � r� _o�• . - •� • � �� - b) Adoption of "Close-In" vs., "]Distant" 'Takeoff Proced.ures to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights c) Adoption of 1Vlandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regu.l.ations to Red.uce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights � ' . � ; � ' � ' ' . � �, � 1f iI � .� ' �. _� '� ' � , -�- • -�r� , .� . � �� - � • •� ' , �� . � � � ��. � . . � , � •��` ' � �• i- � � ��ir'. � �.. r •�.�� N�r � • � �_ , .� i • �i.��r . ��,� �M��-r • '- r-� r �- ' �� .� ' r• �ci r� •� • ' ��• _ �� •n� _�_� ' ,� a) Prevent Construction of Z�ird North ]Parallel .. Run.way ' ' � �: - : � .�: � ,: � - 1;1. � , - • , ,. a) Assuxe Conversion by F�d.eral Deadline of Year 2000 Page 3 , ; � �+ s. � � . �, . � , � , . � �- - - - -,- -,- -� - ,- -,- - - - - -,- - -,- ,- - - - -,- -,- - - - - - - -.- -,- � . •.� •� � � •i �. •i . �- - �r �- -, � � . -•. �. -�;•- t "� ' � j � ��, ' � �•. �• � ��, � � � � � . �� r • ' ' t . ' , � • i • t i � � . � � � � �•� ' -� '� � � • �� Page 4 � � 0 - `...' .A.Yr i e Pla f�.cti n �� ; . -- - .. _ - _ _. A.ction T'1 Develop ent Proc s ;: . �.�.. i. , ; - : * Identify Focus Issue z , . �, � � * Identify Specific Goa1 � � � � � * List What Ne��ds To Be Done - Ac�ion Steps . . :� .. -�, * Identify Who �ii.11 �Work On Each Step � � . * Dete ' e When Each Step Is To Be I�one � � ; J � _n w � i � � 1 0 � " , � ,. � � � � � ' , ... �• .. •. � ��. : .. • ' �.. ' . • .. •. .' .., /... . � ,.., ��-. .♦. .\. �• •� ..,� .. �., . / � �• r�� -r�-� . �r • �� .�-• ,,-• ' • -r -� � i r � �i - -i�� . - :� � r, - -�• - . _ A�tion Steps: �� =` 1. Review previous l��AC , � � � representations on issue �: :._� with City Council � � 0 � � , • � � �. ��', - �� -� �� r� .r-• ,,_� � � .� � . �i r � � �i r • ' ' �r - � � � 1��_�_' _�_ June 16, 1994 L� J�l.y 1994 �..� l-�-�� •n �•� i� . .• .. ••, . r� �� . - ��-, r � ,a � , � �• •� � �� -ri-r ,�•� o �- � � -r � iE {�- �,: to ,� � ,,� c�.. � � �� r� � �, �: �: L� C-�•- �e..5 ' I'age 6 ___ ) Issue: : : Goa1: � ' � � '' � : � , , _ �, Noise Red.uct�on Through Mod.ified Takeoff Proced.ures Adoption of '°Close-In" vs. °'Distant'° Takeoff Proced.ures to Red.uce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights �� Action Steps: ' �.�. � 1. l�ev9.ew FAA Requirenzents � � wit11 City Council �� 2. Continue Participation on . MA.SAC Operations Committee � which is currently reviewing . issue � 3. MASAC Operations Committee reports to full IVIASAC 4. � S. ' ' -�� •r��r-��. •� • � � : ._ .1, .1: : ;1; ' . 1 ! 1 � � ;� � - ;�, . • It 1 ♦ . � , � �• .ir •i��- -�� - ��- �. �� . MAC recommends to FAA proced.ure be tested. Page 7 • S�taff/ARC Ju.ne 16, 1994 Staff/Council On goi.n.g � E--�.� MASAC ,�1�. nne? . � ,, • � , � 1��,Fv\. i:. r^'• �,- i,..i. :. •" 5".� t S'p r,; � „ �G. ✓-�.1-� 1 �( �C io MAC Sept. 1994? MAC Sept. 1994? ii� �, `) � � �� ! �� COn.tin.ued �� Issue: Noise I�.eduction Through Modified Ta.keoff Proced.ures : Goa1a Acloption of "Close-In." vs. °'Distant°° 'Takeoff I'roced.ures � to R.educe Noise Genera�i.on f�ver �3endo�a I�eights Act�on Steps: , � Who When (�� 7. ]�AA designs flight proceclure FA,A -��: -�3:��#? � �t � be tested. �� 8. FA.A begins flight test �� - �9 ,/^ � �y _.� 1.....� ��...� ��.f.��Y'.+`• iry',.6.b.�•..sJ€Ft.�'.....b:a �""` ' � �� :;;j :;,� �`" � ��ae t� � 9 Co„t 1 �U�ih_ . �'` `. r { 1 �. !.�� 0 � �f� ._ issuree ('.�r0�: `. . � . � � � , � � _ •'� �•� � • •i �r -� .�I,-� ' • -� .�•��,� � .c�. • �� ii- .,-• �-. . �r � � � � �- . •i � _ i�• . •'� : Action Steps: 0 �� '., :,�, 1 '� - -� .A�l �l � � • i 0 0 �' . .� � �' • 1 N 11' " •` 1 - N � • � � � �, �, ' � .; • � ' ., �� -�-�,� �•' r�� - � , - � � . �' .i'��,�� - �:r-� - � ' 1/ " i' �`�� f �--��~-� �� y�,�-�.. i � ��{� �� --� �� .. � �##� �e��.��.� �:�,,�-�.�.. � �e..��..,�•c.�,�. �, (J �..�,.�.�; �.��', � .�� C.:�...5 �J r �, 1 '� .i� �. � �• . �` • ►�� : �� G ; � �_,,,„� � p ".�.� t'• �'-E-" ��"'��' G° � '��% (.'j,�:_ �s""�'4-`d""i�i � . 1� . �p,.0..`'r'c- � U`r+..v"'• ryc'� n t✓ � C:" �-"2:.� '�.h. V��.�.L-'^.�-�F a � �� Page 9 � �. .� � .'�' �• ,� �� _� ••, OCt.—NOve 1994 1 � 0 C .��: ��.__.._,__ .. � ' . � , , ' � .' � � Issue: I�eighten Awa.�eness of Mendota.� Heights Air I�Toise Concerns I_.�._ . , i� Goa1: Produce and Distribute Informative Refrigerator Magnets �� Advertising the MA.0 Air Noise Compla.int Line. , _ ._ � Action Ste s: p �� i-�� 1.� Investigate costs of magnet � production and distribution (� 2. Com7mission to review design L�, ) E-, 3. Order c�elivered. to City Hall �: � :, 4. Magnets distributed. to Council -� and Airport IZelations Co�vmissio�. �_.: 5 . � Commission to review fiinal letter and news release IVlagnets d.istributed. to residents Additional magnets available at City Ha11 upon request ',•- 1 - � �r�i� �� - ; ••• Stafi �une 16, 1994 , � � ��irr �� •., ��. S�aff Ju1y 29, 1994 Until Gone � � 1 ISSUe: (�j" (~.�r0�: I� . ,� . � ' � � �, � _ . --�-, :� -i � . -i- • -r�� . •� ' � •� t •�,i� ! � �i � . � '- , -� i � ir. �i �1 �{ � A�tion Ste s: � - P � .. , � 1. Expand mailing l�st for ARC agenda St��ff ;-� �,.�--`��o include State Senators and Reps. ,�,� �'��. ..., t ;....� ,_ � �� 2. Ma�1 letters to State Senators and St�� ? Re resentatives introducin P g ARC ��..� f� �-� �` 3. Invite ests to mont�hl ARC � Staff Y �- : � meetings (ie. , Mr. Han�el, 1V.�r. - Wagoner, Sta.te elected officials) 1 �: 4. Expand coverage of air noise issues ; i.n City �ewsletter 5. Continue distribution of refrigerator magnets advertising MAC air noise '� complaint line f . \ �-�i. �... r.a._ f:J.. ',:.�,... �� .�. � �' � e r : :: � ��: � � c, � ( ;.�� • . ••. . , • •, • Y' ^ � �� ry•�y { �.. � � � �,�, �l � { � ,. c- 4�. r. �:.::� i..s; a�_,./ t:..�Z� C.: ;..l�,y.,,.f:. tlt. � Page 11 � f C a �� .:+: � ' Issue: � Goal: � 0 ♦ � • � ' � � � ' , i �Ieighten Awareness of Mendota Heights A ir Noise Concerns �` �� i��r-� � ','- �-� • i- �� .r � �• ��c�i; �� ACtIOYI. Stie]�S: �.-� 1: R.eview current d.istributio�n of '£`� MAC Commissioners wit11 ARC �.>> :�� 2. Prepare lette� to guberna�oria�. � � � candidates asking %r t�.eir ' � �i pos�tion on MSP expansion, �' corridor use, MAC representation ��: �; � ��' 3. Discuss City concerns with our � � current MA.� representative � � 4. Monitor gubernatorial election �-�� thi.s fall �� 5. Discuss concerns with State � ` Senators and Reps. rega.rding � -� composition oi MAC 6a Draft legislation to amend �;� number of comumissioners ,�5,, � and districts boundaries represented � � Page 12 WIlO Staff � Staff , ��- ARC � ��. Staff ;;C.��L�-. . StaffIARC When • . • �. Sept. 1994 Oct. 1994 ' Nov. 1994 .� ••� I.� i YSSU(:: � GOa1: � ' . �' , ' � ' � � 1 ` ' 11 • 11 � . � . � r •1 � - -� .� .� . � � • � �, , � �, , �-� `��:. A�tion Steps: 0 ,�. - •��r ;r� •r . , •, ' ' �' i - �1�J - i,. �.1�[' •1 � � � �� • � � ./1" �'11U . � 3 . �J �1 '�;i•' '- �.�� .��-, .., � � _� _� �� , . - �.� � � 1 �'1 11 ",l .'' �� 11," I • �' I, ' - . � - • r- � , � � � �,- -� �- �- .�,�� , i- �' � 1 • 1_ � ._ : ..' , _ - , ;1 � , ..: .- . �, - � " "�' ' ''r.� ei , i. � �CoiYncil tn y�..r�; �,k, � �� 0 5. Respond to public comment Council/ I�ec. 1994 � request on Final Alterriative A�2C " �� . Environm.ental Document for MS]P :� ��:..�, _ �,. � ��SS l E� '� � �� 't^ `� Q �. t, C>��4 ,� �t c: �. � � u -� f ry, � r Page 13 �i i,.. ��!'�. �= � ',V�- �-�-�"- �'c- �^ l..vt,-�..Is- c...�.�t7cJ(� `�j 4`�,�a �1 � 4--c.s� �c�,-zt (.1.,�-� 1�"t� t�t-��. �„�/ y / ; F. 4�. if tV"C:: V� V..•...R.fiq. �`�F'. � ((/�.�"1r'�G:,. �:. �' - � t�.-..� S G< 1� C;. S VCI. �/^.._/ � , � .- Issue: �. � ,,, . � � ` , ' ♦ ' ; � Conversion to Stage III Quieter Airc�raft �� Goa1: Assure Conversion by Fed.eral I�eadli�e of Xe� �000 Act�on Steps: Who Wh.en .1-.- Review I�fWA obligations xo �� MAC regarding Stage II phaseout ;t;;7 • • and research fleet mtx at varrous� airports around �he count�y ;� 2. Prepare letter �o MAC regarding � ongoing contract t��lks with I�f WA ��- � to request inclusion of language ,, � - specifi;nng phase out date 3e Work with MA,C commissioners who are supporbive of effort to help build consensus am.ongst MAC ' • � . ,� i � � � - �•�' . •r � �� • � '. 11i ��. -� 5. t� �_D Prepare media news releases and information letters expla�in.i.ng issue and asking for letters and/or ca11s to MAC in support of contractual language P� �� 4 St��ff . .• Staff Aug. 1994 Aug. 1994 Sept. 1994 � Sept. 1994 0 � � , �� a" � • 1 1 �' • 1 �•. A; • 1. •. /- - ili 1" ". � � , -r, �, -�•'-' � -�; • � ' / � � � - Action Steps: � - -,. ;i � • -. . r. -r�- - . -� � . i� r �.� � � �. � � �; � -�' � . . :i i - ,� •' • � � �_ �� --�•r� � r � r�.��r . � ieii • ��. r� i �- �; - - � -� � . � . .t�' �IJII'11.A�1 •: 11 .''"i �' i �'1 �" � 11 11 ''1 1. �� 1; • i . 1,�' 1'" ' 11' i' �' "1 � ' , . ' i Page 15 �_ •�, :� - '` • •� � � • • A�.r l�Toise 1'lan of � ..��».c�ion Issue: Assure Installation of Sound Insu.l.atio� in Schools � -- .�iffected by Air Noise E�osure !. - . Goa1: Air Noise Mitigat�o� Through Sound Ynsulation ;t� �i Action Steps: 1. Meet w�t1� school administrators to � � � discuss need 2. �►nalyze MAC School Noise 1Vlonitoring Study 3. Work witli schools to to prepare fund.i.ng request for insulation . . �� , � �� . .� � �� . . � �� Sta�f . •� �� , -� � - j �� r�r_,. � l�} `_ i:t_�i✓ ,-� . � •� . r •• Mar. 1995 April 1995 MINNEAPOLIS/STe PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TOPICS OF INTEREST ( 1. Phase-Out of Noisy Stage II Ai�craft. 2. Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations. 3. Composition of MAC Body - Accountability Issues. 4. MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Planning Issues - Expansion of Existing Airport. 5. Dual Track Airport Relocation to Hastings Site. 6. Remote Runway Development Option. 7. FAA Airspace Usage Study. . 8. FAA "Ciose-In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures. 9. Corridor Definition/Compiiance Issues. ' 10. Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedures. 11. Runway 4-22 Extension Issue - Mediation Underway. 12. Metropolitan Councii "Noise Zone Map" Update and Related Land Use Controls. ; - , , 13. Noise Measurement Issues - Usefuiness of Ldn65 Contour. 14. Equity of Current Runway Use System. 15. Sound Insulation of Air Noise Impacted Homes - FAA Part 150 Program. 16. Sound Insulation of Air Noise Impacted Schoois - St. Thomas and Visitation. 17. Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) 18. Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure Over Minneapolis. 19. Aircraft Engine Run-up Noise. 20. Global Positioning Satellite Technology - Implement 1995-96. � C i 1 � .li .' � �'�L�� _� April 8, 1996 To: Airport Relations Commissioners 1ja From: I�evin Batchelder, Interim City Ad �'�� tor Subject: Discuss MSP Mitigation Committee and Review Noise Mitigation Plan The Dua1 Track legislation requires the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) produce a Noise Mitigation Plan within.180 days of making a recommenda.tion on one track or the other. The MAC made a recommendation in Mazch that the MSP expansion plan was the preferred alternative and the Legisla.ture acted upon this recommendation before adjourning. The MAC has recently formed a committee, called the MSP Mitigati.on Committee, to include neighboring communities in the development of this noise mitigation plan. The MSP Mitigation Committee will be chaired by Mr. Steve Cramer, 1VIAC Commissioner and former Minnea.polis Councilmember. The members of the committee will include the Mayors of each of the communities that border the MSP International Airport. The first meeting is scheduled for May 16, 1996. (Please see attached agenda.) � This mitigation plan is a prime opportunity for Mendota Heights, and other MSP communities, to advocate for noise mitigati.on efforts. I have attached our Noise Mitigation Plan that was produced last year. Also attached in the MSP Communities - Community Protection Concept Package. As the Commission will recall, Mendota. Heights did not participate in the City of Richfield's efforts to legislate the protection package. (Please see attached December S, 1995 letter to Jim Prosser from myself.) Mendota. Iieights did not participate in Richf'ield's efforts on the community protection package because it did not include any operational mitigation efforts. This does not mean that we cannot support some of the non-operational mitigation efforts, while pushing for operational changes at the same time. The purpose of this discussion will be to provide Mayor Mertensotto with some guida.nce, support and background work to assist his participation on the MSP Mitigation Committee. � ' � 1� 1 Review Noise Mitigation Plan and Community Protection Concept Package and provide clirection to Mayor Mertensotto, the City Council and staff. � Ca _ _ � 0 METR.OPOLITI�,N AIRPORTS C01��1MISSION � ' ��Q = Minneapolis-Saint Paul Infiernational Airport , ''� 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, 1�1N 55480-2799 �� Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5'l96 (� z' � : .f � � 1 . � :l -j- � 4LyNa . 1a 2. 3: 4. 5. .,.. . . ... .... . .•: :. . . �� ... IVISP MITIGATION COMMITTEE �1�10..I l tp ��-g9s, 4:0o p.m. MASAC Room - MAC General Offices 6046 2�th Avenue So�uti� IVlinneapolis, MN 55450 . �. Organizationai issues a. b. c. d. Meeting Location Meeting Dates - Time Potentiai Agendas Public Input Options �egislative Requirements Current Mitigation Programs Residential Sound Insulation Program School Sound Insulation Program Property Acquisition . Future Airport Development/Operations Contour Comparison - FAR 150 (1996) and Future (2005) The Metropolitan Airports Cotnmission is an affirmative action em�loyer. � ti: �y � �' �,`u' ✓y+- V - y/M,�ep,pv�' . Itelicar.r Airports: �IRLAKE • A,tiOKA COUNTY/B[..e�ItiE • CRYSTAL • FLY'ING CLODU • LAhF, EL.\fU • SAIhT PAUL DO�NNTOtVtv � � PROPOSED MSP NOISE MITIGATION PI.AN PROCESS MEETING 1 Organiaationai issues Meeting Dates/l.ocation/Time �egislative Requirements Current Mitigation Programs Residential lnsulation School insulation Acquisition Future Airport Development/Operations MEETING 2 NWA Fleet Conversion Pian MSP Community Protection Group Presentation and Discussion on work i _ ) - -- Community Presentations MEETINGS 3 & 4 - Discussion of Potential Mitigation Measures Begin development of mitigation plan MEETING 5 Continue development of mitigation plan MEETING 61F NECESSARY to continue development of mitigation plan � C. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS . , , , � „ , � � � , As a community directly and severely affected by aircraft operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul internafiional Airport (IVISP), the City of Mendota Heights is very concerned over the future configuration and operation of the airport. As part of the Duai Track Airport Planning Process, the City has been approached by the Metropolitan Council to discuss ways in which our community is impacted..by #he airpart, a�d strategies for mitigating these impacts. The Minneapolis/St. Paul Area Community Protection Concept Package prepared by the Metropolitan Councii represents the product of these discussions and attempts to provide a number of toois and techniques by which flltendota Heights and other nearby communities will be able to address airport related impacts. The City of Mendota. Heights supports the adoption of the Metropolitan Counci! Community Protection Package based upon the foilowing jusiification of need anci operafional considerations. As the nurnber of PUISP aircraft operations has grown, air noise impacts within Mendota Heights have increased dramaticaily. Many of the noise impacted , � areas within our City are older residential areas (built in the 1940's, 50°s and 60°s) `_ which cleariy pre-date the surge in air traffic experienced at MSP during the 1980's and 90's. As a result of i�creased noise exposure, these oider Mendota . Heights residential neighborhoods have experienced disinvestment and decline. in order to stabilize ifiese areas and maintain their viability, the use of property value guarantees,� tax credits for housi�g revitalization, aggressive sound insulation programs, and other described community stabilization programs is necessary and warranted. Residential neighborhoods potentiaily eligibie for these programs include the Furlong Addifion along State Trunk Highway 55, Curiey Addition aiong Lexington Avenue, Rogers Lake Addition along State Trunk Highway 149, Friendiy Hiils Addition along State Trunk Highway 149, and other scattered neighborhoods located in identified noise impacted areas. Revitalization of industrial properties within the City°s Business Park wili similarly require substantial resources over time. In order to maintain �the long term economic heaith of this area, the City Council would consider the selective use ofi community stabilization and revitalizafion fioois described in the Community Protection Concept Package. City of Mendota Heights MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs Page 2 � The Community Protection Concept Package also discusses a number of airport protection measures designed to prevent incampatibie land development in airport impacted areas. As a community incorporated in 1956 and comprehen- sively planned in 1959, the City of Mendota Heights has a number of established land use patterns which limits its ability to make sweeping land use modifications for the sake of airport expansion. For instance, the City of Mendota Heights is already 90-95% developed. Nonetheless, the City of Mendota Heights has for many years cooperated with the Metropolitan Council in adopting and enforcing land use controls related to the airport. In 9 987, the City of Mendota Heights became the first and only city to adopt the Metropolitan Council's Aircraft Noise Attenuation Ordinance and has strenuously enfarced the Metropolitan Council's Guideli�es for Construction Within Aircraft Noise Exposure Zones. In addition, the City has made a concerted effort to limit the total number of new residential units located in areas overflown by aircraft, and has experienced substantial costs in support of litigation to achieve these goals. � � � The City takes seriously its responsibility to control the developmenfi of noise incompatible land uses within IVlendota Heights. As such, the City does not support the creation of another regulatory body, such as the Airport Zoning Board, to usurp the land use auihority vested in our duly elected public officials. lf "teeth" are to be put into tfie enforcement of land use patterns, the cities themselves should be ihe enforcing authority, not some distant, non-representative board such as the Airport Zoning Board. 'fhis is nofi to say #hat the L�gislature, the Metropolitan �►irpor�ts Commission, and the Metropolitan Council do not have important roles to play in regulating air noise generation and exposure. If MSP is to continue to exist in its present location, it is essential that "teeth" also be put into the regulations affecting the operation of the airport. Long term community compatibility with � MSP is premised on the following: 1) The aircraft departure corridor should be narrowed over Mendota Heights and Eagan to take full advantage of the latest air tcaffic control technology. The introduction of a Global Positioning Satellite navigation system at MSP in Fall 1995 should greatly improve the safety of airspace management, and will also lessen the distance aircraft need to be separated from one another to ensure passenger safety. Other precision air traffic control advancements on the horizon will only help the MAC and FAA better utilize the airspace surrounding MSP to minimize air noise impacts over residential areas. City of Mendota Heights MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs Page 3 2) The inequitable reliance on the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor should be eliminated. The capacity of the corridor is finite, and communities over-flown by aircraft using the corridoe� ought noi be expected to endure air noise exposure beyond a fair limit. �411 communities surrounding MSP receive significant economic be�efit from its close proximity. Similarly, ail should be expected to bear a reasonable and equitable share of the � associated noise burden as weli. 3) Over the Mendota Heights/Eagan area, departing aircraft should be directed to utilize, to the fullest e�ent possible, less noise sensitive areas, such as industrial park properiy and highway rights of way. These areas have been planned in conformance with existing and approved airport runway configur�tions, are in conformance with IVtetropolitan Council guidelines, and have been approved by the nlletropolitan Council. To fully accompiish this goal, aircraft during non-busy hours shouid be directed to fly a crossing pattern in the corridor, rather than being given departure headings which overtiy close-in residentiai areas. This crossing procedure duri�g non-busy times has been approved by the Nletropolitan Airports Commission and is currentiy awaiting impiementation by the Federal Aviation Administration. 4) Once modified to take advantage of ihe latest air traffic control technology and adjusted to correct for air noise distributionai inequities, the boundaries of the aircraft departure and arrival corridors should be specifically defined, and air noise exposure standards should be estabiished along this corridor. Aircraft operators violating these standards should be subject to substantial monetary fines. 5) Nighttime aircraft restrictions should be put into place immediately to ensure that o�ly Stage ill quieter aircraft are flown between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Such restrictions shouid be mandatory and viotation of the standards should result in a monetary fine to the offending air carrier. 6) Noise Abatement Departure Procedures trelated to how quickly aircraft gain altitude upon departure) should be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that the full performance capabilities of all aircraft are being utilized. The ability of aircraft to rapidly gain altitude, thereby minimizing aircraft noise levels experienced on the ground, should be quantified and made part of air traffic departure procedures at MSP. This is especially true for Stage III aircraft. � City of Mendota Heights MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs Page 4 7) in its MSP Comprehensive Plan, the MAC has identified a future runway construction project located on the west side of the airport property. This new North/South runway, if built, is expected to accommodate air traffic needs well beyond 2020. The face of aviation will be considerabiy different by that time and will hopefully include later generation aircraft which will be substantially quieter than the current Stage 111 quiet aircraft, and high precision air traffic control technology which will ensure safe airspace management with a minimum of aircraft separation. With this in mind, the MAC shouid commit that any airport expansion identified in subsequent MSP Comprehensive Ptans wiil be "noise-neutral", meaning that no new noise impacts over residential areas will be generated off of the airport property as a result of the future addition of new runways. C 8) Also related to the MSP Comprehensive Plan, the MAC should establish measurable criteria by which the performance of MSP is to be judged in deciding whether or not airport expansion is warranted. These performance criteria should be frequently and regularly reported to allow interested parties to monitor the need to undertake the improvements described in the Comprehensive Plan. � � � �� \ a � ►, � � � � • _ December 8, 1995 Mr. James D. Prosser City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, NIN 55423-2599 Dear 1Vir. Pr+osser: This letter is to inform you that the City of Mendota Heights respecifully declines to participate in or support legislation to further the Community Protection Concept Package. The Mendota Heights City Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 5,1995, unanimously adopted a motion direc�ing that the City of Richfield be no 'tif'ied that Mendota Heights declines to participate in or support Ricbi"ield's legislative efforts. � While Mendota Heights has pazticipated in the year long discussions regarding the Community . Pmt,ection Concept Pa�ckage, we disagree with the decision to delete air noise mitigatioa needs < from the draft concept package. A copy of our.nesponse, entitled " City of Mendota Heights' - MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs" is attached for ready reference. � �� _ x. The City of Mendota Heights remains willing to participate in the implementation of effective airport planning methods as part of the MSP Commuaities gmup. 5hould you have aay questions, or concerns, please contact me at 452-1850. Sincerely, �,�,�,.�^-- ��uif`�u�-- Kevin Batchelder Interim City Administrator - - cc: State Senator James P.1Vletzen � State Senator Deanna Wiener 5tate Senator Pbil Riveness ( j State R�epresent�tive Tim Commers � - State Representative Tom Pugh State Representative Edwina Garcia All MSP Communities meanbers The cities of Sunfish Lake and Inver Grove Heights . . .. � . .,� 1101 Victoria Curve •,�,e�clota I-�eights, �lY • 55118 . 452 • 1850 , . , �ry� ►��i�► � � r_�;�i� Community Protection Concept Package MSP Surrounding Communities Background: The Community Protection Concept Package is the product of more than a year of discussion and planning by the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Richfield. Met Council initiated the planning process as an unofFcial supplement to the Dual Track Planning Process. A similar process was begun among Dakota County parties. The collaborative cornmunity planning around MSP has produced a proposal that recognizes the current and future airport-impacted environments, and offers solutions for the potential impacts that are likely to be experienced. There were two competing rationales driving the MSP collaborative, relative to the Dual Track Planning Process. "The first scenario was that a mitigation package agreed upon by all airport impacted parties would make it more palatable for legislators to keep the airport at its present location, knowing that tools would be available to protect communities from greater airport impacts. The second scenario envisioned approval of a new airport, but one that probably would not be functional for 15-20 years or more. The reality of such a scenario is that in the interim period MSP will continue to adversely impact surrounding communities. It is vital that protections be implemented now to avoid the potential disinvestment which is likely to occur. Whichever rationale the reader subscribes to, the fact is that the concepts included in this package represent proactive reinvestment now rather than reactive rehabilitation later -- which is more expensive and less likely to succeed. Protection Conce�ts The concepts that are included in the community protection package are a combination of those which have proven successful in the MSP impacted communities and others from around the country that have been similarly successful in achieving desired outcomes. Concepts that would have merit in application are: • Community Stabilization Techniques - Possible programs include property value guarantees underwritten by the participating municipalities, tax credits for housing revitalization in noise impact areas similar to recent Met Council incentives for homeowners in declining neighborhoods, and acquisition of incompatible land use prior to deterioration such as the New Ford Town and Rich Acres buyout. � Community Protection Concept Package Executive Summary Page 2 • Community Revitalization Approaches - Examples would be tailored t� increment financing districts and community development banks, both of which would make it easier for communities to revitalize or redevelop areas where necessary'. Tax increment financing represents one of the few remaining tools for fully developed cities to implement needed redevelopment, given the costs of such projects in an environment of increasingly limited financial resources. s Incentive Programs - Similar programs are often utilized as a trade-off for developments and other land uses that provide more of a benefit for regional users than is received by those directly impacted; e.g., recreation centers built as compensation for large industrial devetopments. • Airport Protection Measures - These would include local land use controls to prohibit or control future developments that may be incompatible with airport impacted areas, unless appropriate mitigation measures are taken. Desired Outcome of Pro�osed Package Much of what is included in the Comrnunity Protection Concepts Package would require legislative approvai ancUor funding. Ideally, the package would be accepted completely � and implemented to utilize as many of the programs possible. However; the planning group recognizes that some of the proposals are more politically feasible than others and a more realistic approach would be an incremental phase-in of those programs most likely to show measurable results. The best selling point for this package, when faced with the competing interests inherent in the legislative process, is that this collaborative planning effort represents the best progress ever made in remediating airport impacts. i MIIVNEAPOLISIST. PAUL AIRPORT-AREA COMM[LTNITY PROTECTION CONCEPT PACKAGE .._ Prepared For 1Vletropolitan Council � . City of Bloomington City of Eagan City of Minneapolis By Clarion Associates Denver, Colorado Metropolitan Airports . Commission City of Mendota Heights City of Richfield in association with Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota October 1995 C � MINN�APOLIS/ST. PAUL AIRPORT-AREA COMMUNITY PROTECTION ' CONCEPT PACKAGE--DRAFT Clarion Associates in association with R.ichardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. October 1995 INTRODUCTION The Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) Airport is widely recognized as being one of the primary economic assets and engines in Minnesota. Not only does it provide substantial direct economic benefits in terms of jobs, but it is a key link for the state in an increasingly global economy. The state legislature is currently studying whether, if MSP is to remain a smoottily functioning, modern and competitive facility, it should move to a new site in Dakota County or remain at its current location and expand. A decision is expected sometime in 1997. It is clear, however, that even if MSP moves to a new site, that move will not take place for up to 20 years given current capacity and projected demand. While the airport obviously has many positive benefits for the region and state, it is also O apparent that it has significant impacts on the communities around it. Noise impacts are always the first issue that springs to mind, but in reality there are others of equal significance-- safety, ground traffic, fiscal/tax base impacts, environmental influences, and effects on property values and overall community stability. Most airport-impact mitigation efforts focus almost exclusively on noise--and the Metropolitan Airports Commission has established a good track record with its noise insulation and property buyout programs. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that because of limited federal funding, the noise mitigation programs are limited in their outreach. Moreover, if the airport is to be a good neighbor for at least the nei�t twenty years, and the vitality of surrounding communities is to be maintained, these other impacts need to be addressed. Simply buying property and tearing it down or insulating eaisting houses closest to the airpc�t �s not enough. Airports are dynamic facitities, at least if they are successfui. Operational requirements are constantly changing and new runways and other facilities need to be added from time-to-time. Thus mitigation efforts at MSP must also be dynamic, continually changing and being adapted to respond to changing airport impacts. At the same time, steps need to be considered that will prevent any new incompatible development around MSP that would hamper its eff'icient operation in the long term. To tackle these issues, staff representatives of the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission have been meeting informally since late 1994 with representatives of local governments that are located in the vicinity of MSP. These include Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Rachfield. The group's primary goal has been to identify and explore tools that can utilized to address MSP impacts and to enable communities in the 1 t airport environs to take the initiative in dealing with them. ` In essence, . these discussions have focused on how to make the airport a better neighbor and to ensure the continued vitaiity of ( surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. Recognizing that this effort. was a two-way street, the. group also examined ways to. prevent new; incompatible development that. might adversely affect the airport. . , . , . : During 1995, the group has examined a wide range of tools and techniques and has developed a mitigation package that the group recommends the legislature consider regardless of the decision regarding location of MSP.2 This package includes several of the most promising approaches identified over the course of six months of study and deliberation. It would require cooperative action by the state and its agencies, the Metropolitan Council, MAC, and private sector businesses: • Community stabilization techniq�c such as property value guarantees, tax credits for housing revitalization in noise impact areas, acquisition of incompatible land use prior to deterioration. • Community revitalization apnroaehes such as tailored tax increment financing districts and community development banks. : • Incentive programs similar to those commonly used in siting large facilities to provide offsetting beneiits (such as neighborhood recreation centers) to a . community or neighborhood. These would include incentives from �private firms ( (e.g., the airlines, car rental companies) as well as from public agencies. � • Airp�protection measures such as improved local land use controls to ensure that developments that are incompatible from a noise or safety perspective do not occur in the airport environs unless mitigation measures are undertaken. The group also examined the issue of where such tools and incentives might be made available. While airpon impact mitigation programs often are confined to areas affected by a certain level of noise (typically within the so-called 65 Ldn contour), the group believes a convincing case can be made that the impact area should not be so narrawly deiined. When homes are demolished within a 70 Ldn noise contour, the impact on the availability of affordable housing may be significant throughout the entire community. Likewise, their may be a significant effect on a communiry's tax base. Of course, airport expansion can have a range of other significant impacts on a community, for example, major changes in traffic levels and patterns. 'A summary of the operating principles adopted by the group is aCtached to this document. 2The measures discussed by the group did not discuss changes in airport operations, such as limitations on hours of operations and alterations of flight patterns; that may be necessary to �, fully ameliorate adverse impacts. Fa Based on such considerations, the recommendation here is simple two-step screen to determine which communities should be eligible to use the range of tools discussed in this memo. First, only communities that have within their borders a 60 Ldn noise contour as defined by the MAC would be eligible to participate. Second, to put reasonable limits on the geographic area within which the tools might be employed, the group suggests they be available in neighborhoods within one mile of the 60 Ldn contour as depicted on the attached map. The definition of the precise boundary within these general parameters should be delegated by the legislature to the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each jurisdictions to ensure logical coverage of affected neighborhoods. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES Community Stabiliza�ion Communities across Minnesota and the United States have used a variety of programs to help stabilize and revitalize their neighborhoods and commercial areas. For example, in the airport area the City of Richfield has undertaken an innovative housing development program to stabilize neighborhoods around the airport. Similarly, the City of Minneapolis has utilized programs such as the Family Housing Fund to renovate deteriorating housing. However, these programs are limited in scope and do not address other key community stabilization issues. Property Value Guarantees . . . . � Where Iandowners anticipate that their properties will be adversely'affected by noise from airport operations, they may perceive a threat to their property values. This perception may lead to a pattern of flight from the neighborhood, thus lowering values, damaging the integrity of the area, and rendering the area unstable and vulnerable to disinvestment and an influx of incompatible land uses. Additionally, perceiving a potential loss in value of their most important investment, some owners may strongly oppose any airport expansion that will affect them. Experience in the Village of Oak Park, Illinois, a middle-class suburb of Chicago, demonstrates that local governments can bolster confidence in an area of potential deterioratian by providing guarantees against property value depreciation. Oak Park utilized a property value guarantee program to stabilize a racially changing neighborhood. In brief, the program worked like this. Owners of eligible single-family residences submitted an application to join the program with an $90 application fee that covered the cost of an appraisal and administrative expenses: If after five years the homeowner sold at a price lower than the original appraised value, he was entitled to be reimbursed for 80% of the loss, assuming the house had been maintained adequately during that period. If substantial improvements were made during that time, a reappraisal was possible. Also, if the property could not be sold on the open market, then the owner was eligible to have it purchased by a village-established Equity Assurance Commission. Oak Park believes the program was successful in calming fears of property value loss. While over 160 homeowners initially joined, less than 60 properties remain in the program. Interestingly, 3 � r no claims were ever filed for reimbursement. Today, the village has successfully integrated and remains a desirable residential community. ( Emulating this .concept, . local go.vernments around MSP should . be authorized to establish a program :that pledges to, reimburse landowners for losses in property. value caused by airport operations and impacts. Backup funding to cover any payouts might come from the state or the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The local governments would pass through such reimbursement upon the landowner's sale of property. The landowner might be asked to waive any state relocation benefits as a quid pro quo for any equity reimbursement, the rationale being that such reimbursement would make them whole and that the move was voluntary. Where owners are unable to sell their properties, such programs might require local governments to purchase the properties in fee simple at fair market value, again with backup funding from the state or MAC. Participation would be. optional for all property owners within a designated eligibility zone (such as a noise overlay zone). � Preferential Ta�c Programs To encourage citizens to continue to live in an area that is under some form of physical or social stress or to move to such areas, states and local governments across the United States have adopted a variety of. income and property tax credit programs. For example, the State of Minnesota recently adopted an urban � homesteading program that �uthorizes the Metropolitan Council to designate urban revitalization and stabilization zones that� are in transition to blight and ' ove An erson bu in or occu in a home within such a zone is eli ible for an exem tion � �-P m'��Y P Y� g PY g g P from Minnesota taxable income for up to five years (u to a limit of $15,000 for married individuals fiIing a joint return) in specified circumstances� � Similarly, the 1995 Omnibus Tax Act provides special property tax benefits to encourage owners of commercial and industrial businesses to locate within one-fourth mile of major transit stops. The goal is to encourage job densiry around transit stops, thus making mass transit more feasible. The state's enterprise zone legislation also provides property tax beneiits to businesses locating in designated areas. (Amends Minn. Statutes Section 273.13, Subd. 24 and adds Minn. Statutes Section 473.3915) In the context of the airport area, such tax benefits might be geared towards trying to keep existing residents in place. Thus a credit might be offered to all persons who have lived in a designated impact area for a specified period and who continued to do so. If the person moved out of the area within a certain time of claiming the credit, a portion of the tax credit might be recaptured. . �-Iousing Revitalization Programs As noted above, several of the MSP-area communities have undertaken aggressive and innovative ( housing revitalization programs: However, where these efforts involve direct government action 0 1 as they do in Richfield to purchase deteriorating properties, they can be quite costly for local �`, jurisdictions. Experience with programs like the "This Old House" rehabilitation tax credit program in Minnesota, which provides a tax write-off for owners who make improvements to homes over 35 years old (Minn. Statutes Section 462A.203, Housing Preservation Program), and similar initiatives in other states demonsfrates that if individual homeowners can be enticed into spending their own funds, government expenditure can be significantly leveraged. Interestingly, in Minnesota half of the credits have been claimed by owners of homes with values less than $85,000. Thus the state legislaiure should consider replicating such a rehabilitation tax credit program for homes in designated airport-impact areas, tailoring it to be more effective by reducing the age limitation Co fifteen years instead of thirty five and thereby encouraging renovation of a wider range of housing. In the same vein, experience demonstrates that private investment in housing can be greatly encouraged with a modest r�duction in mortgage lending -rates, down payr�ent requirements, reduction in closing costs and similar approaches that reduce initial investment and carrying costs for prospective homeowners—especially first-time buyers. As applied to the airport area, special lending programs embodying these concepts, in addition to those already in effect in other areas, to encourage more aggressively first-time home buyers, thus helping to stabilize the airport-area neighborhoods. . Housing renovation revolving loan funds have likewise proyen to be useful tools in broader community stabilization and housing preservation programs. :Typically, local governments create low-interest loan rehabilitation loan funds for designated areas (e.g:, an historic district). Homeowners in the district can borrow funds for�rehabilitation at below-market.interest rates, thus encouraging investment of their private dollars. Payment can be made over a specified term or upon sale of the home. Repaid funds are then recycled by making new loans. A similar program is currently available in Minneapolis through MCDA--the Middle Income Housing Program. This program is not limited to first-time homeowners; it makes loans available for housing rehabilitation such as putting a new roof on a house. Funding for such a program tailored for the airport area might come from a one-time appropriation by the state legislature, an annual contribution by the MAC, issuance of revenue bonds by MAC, noise impact fees on late-night flights, or a cambination of sources including some forrn of local match. Community Revitalization Community revitalization programs are generally seen in areas that are past the stage of "preventative medicine" such as the property value guarantee. Communities have generaily discovered that there are no "silver bullets" when it comes ta revitalization, but rather success will depend on utilization of a variety of programs to address problems such as lack of capital investment funds. Again, MSP-area communities have some substantial experience with commercial and residenfial revitalization programs, but more programs are needed to enable them to deal more effectively and comprehensively with airport impacts. � � Tax Increment Financing r � L Tax increment financing (TIE) districts have proven to be an effective community revitalization Q � tool� throughout the state. There are. currently five. general types of TIF districts, and the �. municipalities surrounding �MSP �may qualify: to use. one or more .of these districts. Generally, however., there are limitations imposed relating to percentage of substandard structures in an area, purposes for which funds can be spent, the basis upon which the increment is calculated, and areas within which funds can be expended that tend to limit the usefulness in dealin� with airport impacts. With relatively modest tailoring, the airport area working group believes that TIF could become a powerful tool to deal with a whole range of airport-impact issues. These recommended changes include: • Qualifications: Alter basic qualifying language so that, in addition to a specified percentage of substandard housing, location within an airport impact zone would trigger use of the district. • Spending of increment: Permit the increment to be used for several purposes in addition to the standard land acquisition, site improvements, etc. Other qualifying expenditures might be noise insulation, rehabilitation loans, mortgage revenue � . bonds,: community facilities, etc: � � - e Geographic restrictions on spending: Allow expenditure of increment anywhere ,within broader project area, perhaps the entire airport =impact zone; � do not limit (� just to district. • Increment basis: Allow localities to write down increment basis to zero. Addressing the associated reduction in local government aid is important to the communities. One alternative would be to allow use of tax increment financing in the qualifying communities without local government aid penalty. Another alternative for consideration would be to spread the reduction over the seven county region the reduction to reflect the regional importance of the airport and the special burdens borne by airport-area communities that benefit others throughout the regian. • Inclusion of commercial airport property in districts: An increasing number of airports around the United States are encouraging non-aviation related commercial development on airport land, particularly in open buffer areas on the periphery of an airfield. MAC should be specifically authorized to allow commercial use of buffer properties for non-aviation commercial uses, and such properties should be included in districts, the increment equivalent being paid into a fund to be used to address airport impacts. 0 � Community Development Bank Availability of a steady flow of investment capital or low-interest loans is often a key ingredient in the success of community revitalization programs: Experience shows that in blighted or deteriorating areas, bank.lending and other traditional sources of renovation and revitalization funding may dry up or conventional financing may not be su�cient to stimulate private investment. To address this issue, several community development banks have sprung up that might be emulated in the airport environs to deal with lack of private loan funds or low-interest financing. � One of the most successful of these community development banks--the South Shore Bank in Chicago--is described more fully in the attached report. Using a combination of targeted residential and commercial loans, strategic development projects, and education programs, it has been responsible for revitalizing a neighborhood that had been written off by most observers In most respects, this community development bank is no different than any local neighborhood financial institution. Criteria for lending is the same used by other banks--credit worthiness of the borrower, debt to loan ratio, and similar indicia. One important differ.ence, however, is that a significant amount of the banks funds are in "development deposits"--deposits by institutions and individuals located outside the South Shore area who want to see their money used for neighborhood rehabilitation. As the bank's executive vice president has stated, "We are owned by shareholders who wish to invest in profitable operations, but who are also interested in economic development. " � � , . ..,. :...,,.�<., . . .. ,- : .. . : , ;. :. : Community de:velopment banks often make,rehabilitation funds available at below-market interest rates or with extended payment schedules. This non-traditional financing is often the key to �etting the revitalization ball rolling. Funds for such non-trad.itional programs come from a ��ariety of�sources--community development funds, Community Reinvestment Act programs, and private sector contributions, to name only a few. The idea of a community development bank for MSP-area communities is worthy of further exploration. Whiie the indicia of distress and disinvestment are lower for these communities than was true in South Shore, a community development bank may be able to help stem deterioration in some residential areas and provi�e venture capital and rehabilitation funds in commercial areas, particularly neighborhood commercial. Chartered by the state legislature, start-up capital for such a bank might come from a combination of sources, including MAC, area goverrunents, and even the state who could deposit funds therein. Area companies (particularly those associated with the airport) could also assist by depositing funds and making program-related investments (which typically must be paid back, but at very low rates of interest.) �ommuni�v Incentive Programs In the real estate development business nationally, it is an increasingly common practice to ,r � provide incentives and benefits to neighborhoods and comrnunities that are asked to bear the ��'� irnpacts or burdens associated with a large facility (e.g., a large industrial development or ski 0 L resort). These might range from road improvements to ease potential traffic jams to set asides of significant amounts of park land to offset loss of open space on-site or increased demand on local C parks ,associated with.,an. .�influx of new� workers. : The types of other. incentives offered by developers include;. , :. , . , . . .. . . . ; . , . . . e Community and recreation centers; • Contributions towards local police, �fre; and emergency medical services/equipment; s Planning assistance to help cope with anticipated impacts; • Special rates for use of commercial facilities (e.g., discount tickets at a ski resort). In a general sense, these incentives and beneiits are intended to protect and possibly enhance the quality of life in an area. in which a new development is� viewed as potentially compromising that quality of life. They can also help take the "sting" out of having to live with a major development. In the context of the airport, an incentive/mitigation package might include, for example, funding for additional indoor recreational. facilities. The logic would be that such facilities would help "compensate" surrounding neighborhoods for:the. adverse impacts airport noise has on the use of outdoor recreation sites. MAC has already taken some important steps in this direction by making some of its land available for a public golf course that not only provides additional recreational oppor[unities, but also provides:an important buffer for neighboring:Richfield. � Private companies might also be enIisted in this effort. In many communities, airlines contribute free or discount tickets to worthy community causes in airport environs. For example, to encourage community involvement in planning for the redevelopment of Stapleton Airport in Denver, Continental Airlines contributed airline tickets and lodging as prizes in a contest for school-age children to suggest interesting uses for the site. The MSP communities feel that the many companies and firms that are dependent on the air travel and cargo business and are more � than willing to weigh in on the side of keeping the airport at its current location have an obligation to assist in dealing with the adverse impacts of the airport as well. Noise insulation programs, because of limited funding, do not even deal with the major adverse impact associated with the airport, let alone the serious secondary effects discussed above. .Airport Protection Measure A recurring problem around most major airports throughout the United States is the continuing construction of uses that are incompatible from either a noise or safety perspective. Several steps have been taken in Minnesota to guard against this persistent problem. For exampie, the state has enacted the Airport Zoning Act (Minn. Stat. sec. 360.061 et seq) that requires municipalities within airport hazard areas to enact special protective regulations to prevent construction or expansion of certain high density and other uses. Similarly, the Metropolitan Council, as part of its regionai planning responsibilities, has promulgated model noise protection standards that are : � to be incorparated into local comprehensive plans and regulations. Unfortunately, these '� requirements have not worked in practice. The joint zoning board established around MSP pursuant to the Airport Zoning Act is no longer active. And while a few airport-area municipalities have adopted the Met Council noise standards, the majority have not (although most have some noise protection/insulation standards for new construction). If the airport is to continue to function in an efficient, safe manner, it is important that steps be taken to make these processes more effective. To do so, the legislature should consider: e Integrating the airport zoning ordinance safety requirements with the Met Council noise standards to be administered by a revamped Airport Zoning Board. • Putting "teeth" into the enforcement provisions of the Airport Zoning Act so that local compliance is ensured. At the same time, the state legislature must address the issue of compensation if local regulations prevent a proposed use and local governments are threatened with "takings" litigation that may result in a damage award against them. � Requiring that local implementing regulations be performance based, that is, they specify prefened result, but give local governments regulatory flexibility in achieving a specified objective. • Providing _ land .use . planning assistance to local governments so that they :can comprehensively assess and plan areas subject to airport impacts. 0 . , \ AIRPORT IMPACT MITIGATION TOOLS SUMMARY TOOL SOURCE OF EXAMPLE AUTHORITY/F'UNDING Property Value Guarantees MAC/State of Minnesota Oak Park, Illinois, equity assurance program. Preferential Tax Programs State of Minnesota Minnesota urban home- steading legislation. Housing Revitalization State of Minnesota Minnesota "This Old House" Programs legislation tax. credits for home renovation. Tax Increment Financing State. of Minnesota Current state tax increment Expansion � financing legislation. ,._. .. . ... .. Community Development . NfAC%State/Airport-Related �South Sliore Bank in ._ Bank Businesses � Chicago. Community Incentive Airport-Related Businesses/ Large real-estate Programs MAC deveiopments; ski resorts. 10 t `�...J ' ►. }/ ; � i _ � f� � � t� � ' � '� � � `--j, � . � �{ Q 1. �, � ;? � '� �. . ,� w . � ' 1? !: • g � �� i' ,;�-'�� t. � ,: q � N �� '� � '; �_� .___...�1 _.. �_._^ _ _ . . _ _ -_._.... �� O J' !: ; � � ------- ---- � ""` ` � . . . �' � ; A �� ' o �' ; / i 0 � � D ; �� r ..., � � , : � � .�- / �" ' .' /rn � , ' �\ �S "" �. : '.r i Q. % ' � _' � / i , � '� N `', , � � , o O ��, / � :�► — , r--.-- - - � N. � ♦ � �� .. . , ., . � , � O _ _ ,, _ ` � �==� � ,� � ., `. �. � , e �-.s; . / ;�. � � u e ��l�°°".. � t � � . , . ��;� ''''�, P'"- -1 e .,a � . .: �. . a. � ,�- �. - , �' . , . . � t� . e� ,. � _ .. ., ' �� -� , . . a ; � . , � . � ` ,� '7 ' � � ' � • � � *..s+ ' ,_ / . � � �:_ �' , � i : f� ;"-:"►~"��,� � �.�.�� ..;,s.::-!'' — 1 !' � � � —ti.,� ��► .r.�r�.',��'"'" _ �_ n , �'�...•,.��: ,.... __ `� _ ��.,'� ^� � �. � • ! � �•:.� e r ' �\�e' ..�+ l .� . •� • � .; � � . /; �... .w. • . � � i�::: . .' ,,:: �. � � J/� .� - _` � � �J � � : j-'� � �. e ._ �: . . � - .,.. .. e ..:... . ,. .. . . . r s C � < Principles and Concepts of MSP Communities' ColIaborative Efforts �in Airpori Planning ---,--._. � GOAL: Assuming that Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport (MSP) will continue to operate for an undetermined length of time at its current location and possibly expand, the local governments affected by airport operations are committed to maintairung themselves as healthy communities from a social, fiscal, and quality of life perspecti�e. To that end, they have agreed on the following principles and concepts to guide their cooperative planning efforts to redevelop the airport area with the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and .the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). This planning effort will include an identification of the impacts of MSP operations on these surrounding communities, preparation of a community stabilization and revitalization document, identification of sources of funding and agreement on a proposal for inclusion in the Dual Track Process for mitigating the impacts of continued operations of the airport at MSP. However, the community stabilization and revitalization measures available to aiiport-area �ommunities should not be applied in such a way as to resuIt in undue burden to individual residents of affected communities. These cooper�tive pIanning efforts should not be inferpreted as supporting the retention of riZSP ai its current location or moving it to Dakota County. PRINCII'LES ANll CONCEFTS: 1. To enable communities to take the initiative in dealing with the adverse impacts related to the airport, a range of "airport specific" redevelopment tools, to include new tools and the broadening of existing tools, such as targeted tax-increment financing, should be made available in the airport development area. 2. Airport development area boundaries established for the appl'acation or availability of mitigation measures and tools must go beyond noise contours, because airport impacts are varied and may affect a commuzuty in ather ways. 3. If expansion of MSP results in demolition or removal of buildings and uses and a concomitant loss of tax base in adjoining communities, this loss must be compensated by a lump sum payment or annual offsetting tax payments to local governments and school districts. 4. When housing in a community is removed for airport purposes, fvnds should be provided to the affected local governments to construct or rehabilitate equivalent housing elsewhere - in that community if feasible. �. ' • 5. The benefits of airport expansion, such as increased economic development and impact �- �assistance, and the butdens of airport expansion, including impact on the environment and quality of life, should be shared equitably among affected communities to the maximum extent feasible. 6 Steps should be taken over time by each community in partnership with MAC and the Met Council to create compatible zones around tl�e. airport. These zones should be accomplished through a combination of acquisition, zoning, and redevelopment tools to assure that the zones remain an integral, functional part of adjacent communities. 7. Steps should be taken by each community to identify and phase out over time existing high-intensity uses in areas where existing uses preclude application of safety zone development restrictions. Redevelopment tools should be made available to communities to facilitate and expedite this process. No new schools, hospitals, and multi-family housing should be built in these areas. 8. Airport development area coinmunities should tak� steps to ensure that all new and infill development within the airport development area is compatible from a noise and safety perspective. This should be. accomplished through the use of improved�building codes, zoning regulations, and similar restrictions. 9. Steps should be taken to assure that existing as well as future community-wide redevelopment pIans associated with airport development area impacts are integrated into �- the community's overall plan. (to include the addition of community-wide amenities...) 10. The Met Council should take primary responsibility on behalf of and in cooperation with affected airport development area communities to ensure that the above-listed principles and concepts are fully considered in the dual-track process. These principles and concepts should be reflected in the Metropolitan Council's Development Guide and the Dual Track Decision Document. Tax Treatment of Industrial/Commercial Uses on Airport Property Note: The group has discussed whether the issue of tax treatment of industrial/commercial businesses on airport property should be included in the mitigation package. Currently, industrial and commercial property on MSP properiy is apparently no�subject to full local taxation (city and school district taxes do not apply) nor to fiscal disparities treatment. It has been suggested that this should be changed so that such property is taxed equally with non-airport property. Set forth below is a first-cut discussion of this issue that needs to be reviewed by the group and discussed further. Privately owned commercial and industrial uses on airport property are currently not subject to fiscal disparities treatment. � Furthermore, such uses pay county but not city or school taxes. As a result, privately owned uses on airport property pay only about 25 % of the property taxes compared to similar property off-airport. Given the fact that these private users have the advantage of tax dQltars being used on the airport, as well as for essential government services such as streets off-site, a strong argument can be made that they should bear a more equitable tax �� - burden. Indeed, because surrounding jurisdictions bear a disproportionate .ir�pact from the airport, the argument can be made that additional tax revenues from on-airport private businesses could be used to fund several of the mitigation measures discussed above. 'Fiscal disparities is based on the theory that tax revenue from industrial and commercial development--which is taxed at a much higher rate than residential development--should be distributed to all jurisdictions in the region based on a formula that takes into account per capita population and wealth rather than allowing the jurisdiction within which the development is located to capture all of the tax revenue. . - ",�..... e e