04-10-1996 ARC PacketC9TY i3F MENDO'fA HEIGH'TS `
DAKO'iA COU1V'TY, MIIVNES07'A►
�41RPORT RELATIONS COIVINIISSION
` AGEIVDA
APRIL 10, 1996
L Call to Order - 8:00 o'clock p.m.
` 2. Roll Call
3. Approval of February l4, 1996 Meeting NIi.nutes.
5. Acknowled�e i�eceint of Various Iteports/Corresnondence•
a. l�ASAC March 26, 1996 Agenda and February 27,1996 Nlinutes
b. NiASAC Opera.tions Committee 1Vlinutes �ebruary 16, 1996
c. MASAC Technical Advisor's I2eport for �ebruary 1996
d. Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for �ebruary 1996
e. MSP Nlonthly Complai.nt Summary for 1995
f. Part 150 Buyout Update
g. Invitation to Open House on New Ford Town/Rich Acres Buyout
h. MAC memorandum (2-20-96) on NWA Development Plan
i. February 20, 1996 Mi.nutes of N. Dakota. County Airport Relations Coalition
j. ZVYASAC memorandum to bring Sunfish Lake in as 1ViASAC 2Vlember '
k. Sta�ribune Article on Third Parallel Runway
1. Eagan Auport Relations Commission's Agenda for April
6. �Jnf'inislaed and 1`Tew �usiness:
a. Discuss Mendota. Heights Airport Plan of Action
' b. Discuss Dual Track Airport Decision
c. Uiscuss Noise Abatement Depariure Profiles
"7. Updates
a. Review of Mendota Heights Noise Abatement Ordinance for Construction
'> withi.n the Metropolitan Council Noise Zones ``
�.
� b. Report on Magnetic Shift of Parallel Runways ,� '
., .
c. Report on MASAC Executive Committee Meeting on March 14, 1996.
8. ` Other Comments or Concerns.
9. Adjourn.
;. �
Augiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours iri '
advance. If a notice .of less than 120 hours is received, the City of 1VIeridota .
Heights will make every attempt;to provide the aids, however, this may not be
possible on short notice. Please �ont�ct City t�dministration at 452-1850 with
requests.
� �.
I
,f� .
� � I..., ._ __..�� ....., _...._, ,. ' n_.� .� .,.. _ ' __� : ., ..; (� ti
�..
CITY OF IVIENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINtVESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIOIVS COMMISSIOIV
FEBRUARY 14, 1996
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was
held on Wednesday, February 14, 1996 in the City Hall Large Conference Room,
1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was callec9 to order at 8:06 o'clock P.M. The
following members were present: Beaty, Surrisi, Gross, Leuman, Stein and Olsen.
Cammissioner Fitzer was excused. Also present were Infierim City Administrator
Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser.
OFFICER ELECTION
Commissioner Surrisi moved to reappoint Scott Beaty as Chair and Joe
Leuman as Vice Chair for 1996.
Commissioner Stein seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
�� ) � NAYS: 0
Commissioner Gross moved approval of the January 9, 1996 minutes.
Commissioner Leuman seconclecl the motion.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Chair Beaty inquired if staff has clarified the change in magnetic heading
with Mr. Foggia. Interim Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission
that Mr. Foggia has not returned his phone calls. In response to a question
from Chair Beaty, Batchelder stateci he will research the ground noise test
times and report back to the Commission at an upcoming meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS
REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC October 24, 1995
minutes.
! i
::�:�
_. 1
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC December 5, 1995 �
minutes.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Operations
Committee minutes of January 17, 1996. The Commission noted that the
MASAC Operations Committee reviewed the City of Inver Grove Heights
request to change the current IV�SP Tower Order of turning aircraft as soon
as practical after the 3-mile point. The MASAC Operations Committee has
accepted the change to the MSP Tower Order, as requested by Inver Grove
Heights, and has forwarcled this recommendation to the IVIASAC, MAC
Planning & Environment Committee, MAC Full Commission and the FAA.
The Commission noted that Mr. Foggia informed the MASAC Operations
Committee that the wording change retains the spirit of the existing order,
but clarifies an important point to downstream communities. The FAA has
communicated that fihis change would not affect aircraft operations and that
aircraft already turn as soon as possible after passing the 3-mile turn
restricted area. The Commission acknowledged that the City of Eagan is
opposed to this change.
Interim Administrator Batchelder reviewed a January 18, 1996 letter from
fVlayor Mertensotto informing Nigel Finney, of MAC, that the City Council
has unanimously endorsed the MAC's Corridor Refinement Proposal #1 for
Non-Simultaneous Departure Conditionse Batchelder explained that the Cit�r
of Eagan supports a modification of the off-peak corridor procedures for the
north parallel runway, shifting the off-pealc heading from 105 degrees to
110 degrees. Batchelcier informed the Commission that the MAC anci FAA
support the Non-Simultaneous Departure Conditions proposal and we are
waiting for FAA/Great Lakes office to approve its implementation.
Batchelder stated that staff would contact fVIAC inquiring about the siatus
of the non-simultaneous proposal.
DISCl1SS NOISE �4BATEMENT L�EP�4R'fIJRE PROFILES
Interim Administrator Batchelder explainecl that on January 17, 199C the
MASAC Operations Committee reviewed the analysis on the fVoise
Abatement Departure Profiles (Ne4Di'). He explained that Mr. Futterman,
HNTB Consulting, presented noise contour analysis of both a Distant
Procedure and .its alternative, the Close-In Procedure. Batchelder stated that
this analysis was incomplete because there was no cumulative noise
contours, only single event contour analysis. Batchelder explained that a
special MASAC Operations Committee meeting will be held on February 16,
� ( f
� 1996 to review cumulative contour analysis that will include population
� ) counts within the contours. Batchelder stated that the intent of this
meeting is to allow cities time to react prior to the February 26, 1996
MASAC meeting. Chair Beaty asked that the Commission be given this
information.
The Commission reviewed several charts which indicated DC9 Close-In
Departures and DC9 Distant Departures. The Commission discussed which
NADP would most benefit the City of Mendota Heights. The Commission
asked for clarification on each procedure. The Commission discussed how
the City could best inform its residents of on-going airport issues that
directly impact the City of Mendota Heightse
. • � •' . - �
.�. �. •• �
The Commission acknowledged receipt of a memorandum from Mr. John
Foggia to the MASAC Operations Committee regarding shoulder hour
considerations. Batchelder stated that IVorthwest Airlines is hesitant to
participate because they have only 1 or 2 flights that fly during the
proposed 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. restricted or quiet hours. Batchelder
stated that Northwest Airlines intencis to survey other carriers.
( � .
�,__; �
`` �- ` Commissioner Gross suggested that other cities get together anc! support a
curfew. He stated that if noise is a problem during the late evening/early
morning hours, and a reasonable assumption would be that people are
sleeping between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., then quieter aircraft should be
flying during these times when lives are more affected. Batchelder stated
that the non-simultaneous departure procedure may provide some nighttime
relief by keeping planes to the center of the corridora -
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MAC Part 150 Resiclential
Sound Insulation Program Informatione The Commission noted that the
boundary block now includes VVagon Wheel Trail.
The Commission acknowleciged receipt of a 1994 to 1995 Comparison by
Air Carrier - Noise Management Nlethociology report.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Technical Aclvisor"s
report for November.
The Commission acknowleclged receipt of the Corridor Gate Penetration
Analysis for November. -
��, )
,�. 3
.�><;;:,
i�15i
��
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Technical Advisor's
report for December.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MSP Monthly Complaint
Summary.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the SMAAC Newsletter.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Part 150 Buyout Update.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of a joint MAC/Metropolitan Council
meeting announcement.
DISCl1SS MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT PLAIV OF ACTION
The Commission reviewed the existing Mendota Heights Airport Noise Plan
of Action which consists of the following Air Noise Plan of Action Elements:
1. Noise Reduction through Modified Takeoff Procedures
�
3.
4.
a.
b.
�.
Non-simultaneous takeoff procedures
Rate of climb procedures
Mandatory nighttime restrictions
Heighten Awareness of MH Air Noise Concerns
Distribution of refrigerator magnets
Expanded mailing list of ARC agenda
Appoinfiment of City resident to the MAC
MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
a. Prevent construction of third north parallel runway
Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft Fleet
a. Assure conversion by the year 2000
5. Noise Reduction through litigation
a. Possible legal challenge?
6. Noise Mitigation through Sound Insulation
T
C
C
a. Assure school sound insulation
The Commission noted that the last time the Airport Plan of Action had been
revised was on August 2, 1994.
The following Issues were reviewed and determined either complete or
revised to pursue further action:
a. Issue: Noise Reduction "fhrough IVlodified Takeoff Procedures
The Commission has completed the following Action Steps:
1 o Review previous MNG representations on issue with City Council.
2. Draft letter to MAC requesting update on revised non-simultaneous
takeoff procedures - invite Mro Flamiei to upcoming ARC meeting.
3. Depending upon response, chose appropriate means of advocating
rapid implementation of new procedures.
The Commission felt that additional follow-up with MAC and the FAA should
be pursued.
Bo Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
The Commission has completed the following Action Steps:
1. Review FAA requirements with City CounciL
2. Continue participation on MASAC Operations Committee which is
currently reviewing issue.
The following should be completed/implementede
1. City recommend what procedure should be testeci - February 14,
1996
2. IVIASAC reports recommenclation to MAC Planning and Environment
Committee - February 2i
3. MAC Planning and Environment reports recommendation to MAC
4. MAC recommends to FAA procedure be tested.
5. FAA designs flight proceclure be tested.
6. FAA begins flight test.
7. City to evaluate test results and make recommendation to MAC and
5
�
FAA.
C. Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures (Adoption of
Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations to Reduce Noise Generation
Over Mendota Heights)
The Commission has completed the following Action Steps:
1. Review previous MAC representations on issue with City Council.
2. Research nighttime flight restrictions imposed at other U.S. Airports.
3. Depending upon findings, prepare request to MAC for adoption of
more stringent requirementso
The following should be completed/implemented:
1. Between the hours of 10a30 p.mo and 6:00 a.m., only Stage I11
aircraft to fly during this time period.
2. Call NOISE and inquire about U.S. airport nighttime restriction.
D. Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns (Produce
and Distribufie Informative Refrigerator Magnets Advertising the MAC
Air Noise Complaint Line)
i)
The Commission has completed the following Action Steps:
1. Investigate costs of magnet production and distribution
2. Commission to review design
3. Order delivered to Cit'r Hall
4. Magnets distributed to Council and Airport Relations Commission
5. Commission to reviev�r final letter and news release �
6. Magnets distributed to residents
i. Additional magnets available at City Hall upon request
The following should be implementedo
1. Inform the community of ongoing ARC projects and concerns using
the City's newsletter and separate single page mailings.
E. Heighten Awareness of Nlendota Fleights Air Noise Concerns (Expancl
Distribution of Air Noise Fielatecl Information)
The Commission has completed the following /�ction Steps:
�
1. Expand mailing list for ARC agenda to include State Senators and
Reps.
2. Mail letters to State Senators and Representatives introducing ARC.
3. Invite guests to monthly ARC meetings (i.e., Mr. Hamiel, Mr.
Wagoner, State electeci officials)
4. Expanci coverage of air noise issues.
The following issues will be pursued further:
1. Continue to inform State Senators anc! Representatives about the
ARC.
2. Invite, quarterly, guests to speak at ARC meetings.
3. Devote entire page of air noise issues in the City's newslettera
4. Continue to send press releases to newspapers, State Senators and
Representatives.
Fe Fieighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns
(Appointment af City Resident to the Metropolitan Airports
Commission)
The Commission has completed the following Action Steps:
!. 1 1 o Review current distribution of MAC Commissioners with ARCD
�-�� 2. Prepare letter to gubernatorial candidates asking for their position on
MSP expansion, corridor use, IVIAC representation.
3. Discuss City concerns with our current MAC representative.
4. Monitor gubernatorial election.
The fiollowing issues will be pursued further:
1. Discuss concerns with State Senators and Reps. Regarding
composition of NIAC. Pursue legislation to amend MAC
Commissioner boundariesa
2. Compare cities affected by air noise to MAC representatives.
G. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan (Prevent Construction of Thirci
North Parallel Runway)
The Commission has completed the following Action Steps:
1. Update Commission on status o# MSP LTCP Study.
The Commission discussed how the Long Term Comprehensive Planning of
.i � ��i
...
7
the airport should be discussed in conjunction with the Dual Track issue.
H. Conversion to Stage III Quieter Nircraft (Assure Conversion by Federal
Deadline of Year 2000)
The Commission has completed the following Action Steps:
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.
3. Work with IVIAC 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 informafiion letters explaining issue
and asking for letters and/or calls to MAC in support of contractual
language .
I. Assure Installation of Sound Insulation in Schools Affected by Air
Noise Exposure (Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation)
The Commission acknowledged that City Council has authorized the
issuance of building permits to St. Thomas and Visitation which would allow �
the installation of sound insulation. '
Commissioners Surrisi and Olsen were excused at 10:30 p.ma
The Commission was of the consensus to table discussion on the Dual
Track Planning Process until their April meetinge
Chair Beaty commended Mayor IVlertensotto and City staff on their efforts in
producing a February 12, 1996 letter to the MNC regarding the City's
comments on the Dual Track Airport 6'lanning Process Draft EIS.
��l�T� : ► ► � ' ► �
There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commission moved to
adjourn its meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberiee K. Blaeser
Senior Secretary
�.
�
C
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
j /
�'
A� E N DA
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL.
Generai Meetinq .
March 26, 1996
7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m.
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Caii to Order, Roll Call
Approvai of Minutes of Meeting February 27, 1996
Introduction of Invited Guests
Receipt of Communications
Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complairtt Summary
MASAC Address: John Himle, Chairman, Planning 8� Environmerrt Committee
Discussion: GPS Utilization for Noise Abatemerrt Procedures
Repo�t of the Execufive Committee Meeting March 14, 1996
Report of the MAC March Commission Meeting
Persons Wishing to Address the Council
Other Items Not�on the Agenda
Adjoumment
Ne� Meeting:
April 23, 1996
Nofe Only designated MASAC ..';
represe�tatives `;seated' af the ;table , will be ::
ailowed fo vote ; `' ' ' :
❑
n
a
MINUTES
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
GENERAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 1996
7:30 p.m.
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
1. Call to Order Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:30 p.m. and the secretary was
asked to call the �oil. The foliowing members were in attendance:
Mark Salmen
Jennifer Sayre
Brian Bates
Phii Burke
Mike Geyer
Bob Johnson
Ron Johnson
Dick Keinz
Gordon Wagner
John Richter
Carol McGuire
Tom Hueg
Don Priebe
Jamie Verbrugge
John Nelson
Ann �enczewski
Mike Schlax
Jill Smith
Ed Porter
Dale Hammons
Glenda Spiotta
Advisors
Denis Comell
Roy Fuhrmann
Guests
1
Northwest
Northwest
Airbome
Mesaba
UPS
M BAA
ALPA
MAC
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
St. Paul
St. Paul
Richfield
Richfield
Bloomington
Bloomington
Eagan
Mendota Heights
Bumsville
Inver Grove Heights
Associate Public Member Sunfish Lake
FAA
Acting Technical Advisor
C
� )
4
E
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of. the ;January 23, 1996 meeting were approved as presented.
Introduction of Invited Guests
Receipt of Communication
No invited guests.
No communications.
Technical Advisor's Runway Svstem Utilization Repo�t and Complaint Summarv
The Technical Advisor's Report for the month of January 1996 was distributed and reviewed
by Roy Fuhrmann. Points of interest included:
As requested at the last meeting, the Internet address was added to the inside cover
of the Technical Advisor's Report.
January noise complaints decreased to 415.
Utilization of the Crosswind runway increased over last month.
Nighttime jet carrier operations increased on the Crosswind runway. RUS is at work!
* Along with the DC-9 hush program, Northwest will also be hush kitting twenty 727's.
* Northwest winds caused heavy, departures on 29's and likewise for aRivals on 11's over
Eagan. Historically, nighttime operations on the 29's have been lower than recent
months. The heavy usage during December was mostly due to runway closures for
snow removal which will be analyzed before a meeting is scheduled (requested by
John Richter) with Bruce Wagner, Jeff Hamiel and staff to discuss the increased
operations over Minneapolis. .
Presentation: 1996 MAC Airside Construction Proiects
Gary Warren, Airport Engineer, briefed MASAC on MAC 1996 ai�eld constnaction projects and
answered questions regarding planned reconstruction of the south parallel runway in 1997.
MSP Pavement Statisfics and Today's Standard Ai�eld Pavement were reviewed and are
attached to the minutes.
* $24M Airside constnaction projects for 1996.
* The "Apron" construction will be all daytime construction and will impact the throat area
only. A key factor is that a pavement failure cannot be affflrded - MAC is trying to be
pro-active.
2
The Runway 4/22 extension (2750 ft.) project will begin April 1 and compieted August �
30 at a cost of $12.5M including engineering fees. The Runway 4/22 reconstruction '
project includes compiete reconstruction of the intersection with the north parallel
runway. This intersection project will begin April 8, with construction occuring during �
the nighttime hours until completion. After the intersection reconstruction is complete,
the southem portion of Runway 4/22 will be closed for 6-7 weeks, beginning May 28.
Noise impact during construction will be minimal to none.
Upper and lower roadway constnaction in front of the airport will be completed by May
15, 1996.
FIS (Customs facility on the gold concourse) steel erection will begin within the next
2-3 weeks.
6. Report of the Februarv 16. 1996 Operations Committee Meetinq
The minutes of the meeting were distributed to all members and reviewed by Operatians
Committee Chairman, Mark Salmen. Please refer to the attached minutes.
Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, expressed concems that Mendota Heights is adversely affected
in the DN�60. HNTB will be doing further analysis on this and will be reported at the March
Operations Committee meeting.
7. Reqort of the Februarv MAC Commission Meetinq
Chairman Johnson �eported that phasing plans for developing at MSP through the year 2020
were discussed. Concept 6 and Concept 6A agree up to the year 2010 - additional information
will be forwarded to the Commission and presented at the next meeting.
The purpose of the Draft Report to the Legislature included a summary of work performed to
date regarding the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, to provide an official transmittal of the
recommendation of the two agencies (MAC and Metropolitan Council) to Legislatu�e, and to
provide the basis for the recommendation. A meeting will be scheduled to allow for review of
the draft Findings and Conc/usions.
The Commission will vote on the Dual Track process at the March meeting.
8. Persons Wishing to Address the Council
John Richter, Minneapolis, distributed an article from the Wall Street Joumal -"Real Estate"
dated February 2, 1996 (attached to the minutes). Mr. Richter conveyed that the City of
Minneapolis is being nained because of MSP remaining at the present location.
9. Othe� Items Not on the Agenda
Cindy Greene, MSP FAA ATC, briefed members on the Precision Radar Monitor (PRM)
system. The $6M PRM system is presentiy at MSP - the equipment will be commissioned in
October 1996.
The PRM is an electronic E-Scan Radar sending out electronic pulses which updates an
aircraft's position every 4.8 seconds on a controller's radar scope. This allows the parallel
runways, during conditions of IMC weather, to operate in the same manner as they cuRently
operate during VMC weathe�. PRM does not affect ground movement - it decreases delay
time in the air. The benefit of PRM is the ability to display with greater accuracy an arriving
aircraft's position. Currently, PRM is being analyzed in many different areas of operations and
procedures.
Chairman Johnson announced that the MASAC Executive Comrnittee will meet before the
March MASAC meeting.
Roy Fuhrmann communicated that John Foggia attended a GPS Conference in Phoenix to
discuss the integ�ation of the Honeywell Differential GPS Ground Station with other airborne
equipment suppliers. MAC staff is constantl�r analyzing how new technology can be integrated
to solve the unique noise problems at MSP.
Roy Fuhrmann received a Star Tribune article dated 1-13-96 from Jim Serrin, entitled Noise
is a problem, but airport's an asset, written by J. Robert Stassen, MAC Deputy Executive
Director. A copy of the article is attached to the minutes fo� your review and will be discussed
� at the March MASAC meeting.
10. Adjournment
Chairman Johnson adjoumed the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Jean Deighton, Secretary
4
.
<
)
MINUTES
MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
February 16, 1996
The meeting was heid at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Office Lobby Conference
Room, and calied to order at 9:35 a.m.
The foliowing members were in attendance:
Mark Salmen, NWA - Chairman
Bob Johnson - MBAA
Chuck Curry - ALPA �
Dick Keinz - MAC
Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights
Jon Hohenstein - Eagan (Lorenzo Davis - Eagan)
� vi r,�:
John Foggia - Technical Advisor
Roy' Fuhrmann - MAC
Denis Cornell - FAA
. � .
HNTB NADP Contours
Evan Futterman - HNTB
Kimberly Hughes - HNTB
The report package distributed at the meeting is an integral part of the meeting information and is
attached to the minutes.
Evan Futterman and Kimberly Hughes, HNTB, distributed and reviewed the preliminary NADP
contour population analysis comparing Close-in and Distant procedures, and DNL contour analysis
assessing the cumulative effects of the two profiles - distance versus altitude. Close-in procedure
points of interest are as follows:
• The population impact summary, indicates the Close-in procedure will be an overall benefit
to MSP. Based on the preliminary analysis, HNTB recommends utilizing the Close-in
procedure, assuming a full thrust [maximum performance) take-off.
• Utilizing the Close-in procedure, population reduction within the DNL65 Contour is as
follows:
1
T
1
COMMUNITY DNL 60 Population DNL 65 Population
Reduction Reduction
Minneapolis 5,820 1310
North Richfield 760 1570
South Richfield 365 660
Inver Grove Heights 160 outside contour
Bloomington 0 540
Mendota Heights (380) 520
Eagan (40) 40
St. Paul 210 outside contour
The Close-in procedure utilizes a lesser thrust cut-back than the Distant procedu�e and
aircraft attain a higher altitude sooner, causing the DN� contour to end closer to the airport.
There is an overall improvement within all noise zones.
C.
• Charles Curry noted that, up to 800 feet AGL, both the Close-in and Distant procedures are •
identical - same thrust for takeoff. All Close-in procedures are flown at a full thrust setting
and all Distant procedures are assumed to be flown at reduced thrust.
A discussian session followed. ��
The committee agreed to pursue implementation of the Close-in procedure and suggested the
following steps:
� Northwest will validate their procedures and forward to HNTB who
will report back to the Operations Committee March 7 with a newly
generated contour, and distribute an updated report package. -
—� Final report is scheduled for presentation as follows: MASAC in
April, forwarded to P8�E and the Full Commission in May, with a
proposed implementation in June.
—� Depending on the final analysis, Northwest will need 30-days in
which to update the Jeppeson Manual and notify all pilots.
John Foggia relayed that approximately 6-months after the Close-in procedure is implemented, an
assessment would be conducted to quantify the differences between the current "Distant" procedure
and the potential change to a Close-in procedure. Currenf actual data on the Distant procedure
already exists. This would be compared to actual ANOMS data collected on a new Close-in
procedure, taking into consideration seasonal differences. The ANOMS data analyses would be
explicit enough to ascertain impact of the Close-in procedure.
2
�
r
.
Mark Salmen, Northwest, informed members that there are three different leveis of departure thrust
� , depending on aircraft type. He will validate each of the procedures by aircraft type and fonNard this
information to HNTB who will generate a new contour. An updated repo�t package will be
distributed at this time.
MASAC Goals and Objectives were deferred.
John Foggia reported that MAC Chairman Grieve requested a status report of the 1995 Objectives.
A memo outlining the Status of each element of the 1995 noise area objectives is attached.
The next Operations Committee meeting is scheduled MARCH 7� 1996 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Jean Deighton
Committee Secretary
:�� !t,'• • , '
. for I�orr� 13uild,ers:
.._ ..f . . .
..��T%e,se I)ays,
� � BY,KAftffiIBW�72}W,
�i�� SYd/RrperurajT1awnu.sr�arlo�x,�
.' T6e tatat whlsper in t6e• twusing in•
4'dustry:,Sllener..seW�'Buyera•want their
:: hpme�Et�fUgrtrom•the�erre�•rising
; d1n jb+��'1h�squndtradcto iuodlta llte.
`'15R�en.jrp"wC6me-home 6rom a hard; •
� stressful daY at the otIIa. 3+ou're just rat
•�� ready�la,a�bt ot notse.:' sqya Matt Buss.
�' metrhnndL�ing vice ptesident tat� Maytag
Cbrp.'s 7enn•Alr/Mag�lc (�ef unit "People
.. w8tit IQtpte7c." ,
thnaten a buyer's investment io a home
o(tice, media raom or home theater.
"U you have 550,000 to 5100.000 ot
equlpment, and you are watching movio-
theaterquallty Q�ure and sound, you
�tt drant to tteana Car Cah�F�r �Wa�n—e
• t1Y �wsQ'•. says ChatlesiR:`�
'a�J3�en�inar whou San Fcancisco.
t4'm charges ap W 5155 an twur to diag•
nose and soive home noise probiems.
Aversge hotneowners want qulet too.
. �� �8 � �'P. tound a ma•
jodty of mnsumers it
surveyed wtliing W paY
an extta SS00 to add
soundptnoQne to their �
homa. "We're looking �
at the whole acousqcal '
market as a great o�r
portunity tor us: ' says
lames G. Schmied-
Wcamp, markeUng com-
mwilcaUons manager.
At the NaUonai Asso�
ctation ot Home Buliders
catventkn last week-
enC. Uwens Corning
roited out QuietZoee
acousUcal batling. i1s
Itrst insulation praluct
w.mco�, marketed expressry to
curb interior aoise. The
company promoted lhe sound•stitiing value
o( its products in its tirstever Super 8owl
commerclal last Sunday.
Some buiiders are striving to make even
lawervpriced tanxs quieter. Water(ord
Homes o! Batavla. Tli.. rerenUy used con•
a'ete blocks !n the walLs dfvfding Si50.00D�
and�wider W�m•house units. (t uses the
same technique. which costs an extra 53.000
per unit, in tawn homes miting neaNy twice
as much. "We were mncerned about our
image," says RobeRNeison. president.
Still, there an 13mits to home noise
abatement. Easylamstail gypsum board
is here lo stay, even though it abso�bs less
sound than the inch•thick plaster walis
Pfease 75�rn to Paqe B8, Column 1
S+h
That's � hacd W do !n many exisUng
homes- As outside decibel ievels cltmb, the
walls o( ncan ve n•
ner. Hort�es and Wwn hoitses nrn ciusiered
together more denseiy tttan in the past.
comPou�dinE !he su'as UMt makes �e
�w pn e
ah '�i'v f�7G`SS"f'v'e'T6yers' expectaUons:
RatUes and squeaks are o(ten assodaled
vrith shoddY cauWcUon. whfle qutet •'gives
the�petceptlon ot more quallty� ' says Philip
Hove. a Newport Beach. CaIfL. archltect.
The result is a new quest far quiet that
is changing home conswcUon and design
and mut(ling the whlning engines o( appli•
ances. Demand Is especiaily sUnng at the
high end of the market. whe[e noise can
.ti
c;
F'f2tDAY, FE$RUARY 2, 1996 Bi
Sports: A trainer who gets advice ,....,
straight from the horse's inouth Page B6.
The Home Fron� You needn't be a
rich person to own a house like one pgge gg �
In I-�omes, Silence Is Golden
` Qmtinurrr�Ynu�lir,ryrB/ -' noise•reduction technology, which it says
ypicai ot homes bulit before Worid War It. can actually push sound :�w;�y rather than
Old-fashloned cast-fron plumbinR P�Pes pnssively absorb iL as insulntion dces. So
werc denser—and thus quieter—lhaa the (ar, its sole rnnsumer product is a i99
plastic pipes used today. Some buiiders headsel that reduces bxckground noise.
stl11 put in cast�iron pipe !or certain uses. Appliances are chief contributors to the
whlle many others, (ike PTL Custom dio. When thc d'uhwasher ts turned on, ^peo-
Homes lnc. i� Lambertviile. Mich., heav • ple (lec; the kids cao't do their homeurork;'
ily insulate piasUc pipes to make gurgling says Carolyn Venveyst, VVhidpooi Corp,�s
and sfoshing less sudibie. marketing mmmuntrations manager.
Nor arc buytrs likely to (orgo today's Unttl recendy, about the only wiution
Poputa� open Qoo� plarts, which add con• was to buy a European dishwasher casting
sWerabiy to the clatter. Kitchens that open 5800 and up. But !n the past year, most
onW dtntng nrcas and family rooms create U.S. manufacturers have introduced new,
a hubbub ot appilanca,• teltvisions and quieter models. Jenn•Air has�been selling
skrco systems. So, lo kap sound from its Oitim�te Quiet brand sioce August;
bouncing around so heely. Coscan David- though it costs S.Sq more than other mod•
wn Homes in De! Mar. CaUL, tries to vary eis. it's aiready the company's top seiler.
cefling hefghls and angle the watls in open •^For many years, the focus has been on
areus; says Wiiliam B. Probert, vice presi- making dishwazhers that clean better,"
dent o! sala and markedng. says JenmAir's Mr. 8uss. Now, consumers
IJke tnany bulWers, Oo�e atsp is modi. assume lhey aU clean reasona6ly weil, he
���R �� �°g io �� � says, and ��what has become a very impor•
�� �' �'I�• �� �es Pmssed taat tactor to the high end is quiet."
wood—a anifann matetial that doesn't Whirlpod inWduced tts Qulet Partner
shrink or twtst Itke tradidonai at lutnber. d(shwasher last year. Four months ago it
ThouSh Pttssed wood joBts cost about brought out a quleterwastifng machine. with
�� �� I�mba'. theY b�'t rww �aed In padding Inside the W6. more insu�ation in
abart 20'�f ot new _(loors: T'�vs Jotsl MacMil� ihe ca6lnet walls. and a.quiMer drain hose.
Wn. a Boise limited psnnershlp that mana WhMpool's research shows that tromemak•
facturrs the Joitts, says t►�ey save on labor ers want laundry equlpment near the
���� ���' �a��. kltchen. ralher than in the basemenL �'T'hey
Reducing interior notse is a snnp com• don't want ro he�r a bunch of clatter:' :Hs.
�arcd svith biocYing out the soynds o(�eir ., �Verweystsays. . ��• - .:,s�,:,. . :
�irne aed auto Ga(fic, scousttcs experts ' Consumers do stil! demand a reassuring�
�ay. !)oublrpaned windows, lront porches n�mbie tnim some appllances, to prove
md lnsulutlon don't tuliy do !he tNck. they're doing the job. ��That's why v;icuum
Noise Canceliatlon Technoiogies Jnc. in cl�aners wili probabiy continue to remnln
dnthicum, Md., is working on .'active" noisy,�• says Mr. S;dter. the en�ineer.
% ;�.
_--� �
..............
�� ., .������
� , �.
• , . • � - • � � . -
, . . .' . . . . _ . - . -
.:. .,.. . - �t . - - . . - -
� , � . . . , ,
. . - . . . - - . . - . . . . . :
C
_ . , , .--. .- . , , _
_ . . . .- . , . -
, , - , , , , - - . � , -
• � • • •. � -
. , . . . � -
(' �
�
� � � . ;, � . ;rr � a ' � ` . �
��moemo0�os�o0m�a0��m�o�m��eamm�mmman�no
r ' •�.
:
.
- , . - . - .
e���aoo���a����e�oas��o�������oo�oa���sm����������a���o�������m�������s���o������a�•
!+ � !s ' ' •" � '' � � ; !
� " � _ �, � �
� • . S � -' � � � ►
• � � � • •'
� � � '. • • � � � ' ', • � •
r. �+ , - � �?- t'1-�
� :�1�� ��
�.. ��,-`j�C
�
Megan O'Hara's piece on
your Commentary Page about
aircraft noise deals with a seri-
ous and troublesome problem,
but it is inaccurate and does
not look at the entire picture.
She probably had no control
over the headline, which com-
pared jet noise to milfoil. It
should be pointed out, howev-
er, that whereas milfoil has little
or no redeeming value, jet noise
is an unfortunate byproduct of
airport activities which result in
the creation of 113,000 jobs,
more than �5.5 billion annually
injected into the local commu-
nity, much of it as wages, and
more than $350 million in taxes
for local and state coffers. Stop-
ping the flights means cutting
off the economic benefits and
job creation.
It is not true that the "resi-
dents of Minneapolis get more
than 90 percent of the airport's
flights" over their homes. Nor is
it true that the percentage has
increased in recent yeazs.
October 1995 total move-
ments over south Minneapolis
were 47.7 percent of the total.
1995 totals through November
were 46.1 percent. 1989 move-
ments were at 48.6 percent.
Movements over Mendota
Heights and Eagan average
about 55 percent.
What O'Hara has apparently
done is add the percentages of
landings and takeoffs together
to arrive at 90 percent. Using
that logic, any city that had 100
percent of the landings and 100
percent of the takeoffs would
be subject to "200 percent" of
total movements.
Nevertheless, the noise
problem is a real and serious
problem. It is not easily solved.
As for her statement about
the governor [and MAC] not
"giving a passing nod . . . [to]
seeking solutions for the 20,000
to 30,000 Minnesotans ham-
mered by jet noise," she has
totally ignored the millions of
do(lars spent over the years to
�r�itigate noise through many
Tn .�,
noise abatement programs d�
veloped with the help of norist
affected residents. AlthougH•ntit
solving the problem, these �ef-
forts have reduced average.ttaP=
ly noise by 25 percent. ��; ��
For six years the Metro�roli-
tan Airports Commisrsion
(MAC) has followed the Legi�i�-
ture's mandate to explore �vhat
capacities and facilities�,,ar�
needed to meet the commu4n�-
ty's au.� service demands. "' -
The Legislature has rese,�rv�d
the right to choose where those
capacities and facilities sho'u�d
be located. The governor tias
asked that the Legislature move
up the decision date. MAC can
have all essential information
available to assist the Legisla-
ture in making an earlier deci-
sion.
There are at l�ast three rays
of hope for the short term:
7�► Airlines are required by
federal law to have a stage ?
(quieter) fleet by the end o� t�i�.
decade. � ' '
> MAC and Honeywell `ar;e
installing a Glotial Positio�rin�
System (GPS), a navigatioiial
aid that will enable aircra'ff 'Co
land using many differenh ap-
proaches, eliminating the rs�eti
to follow a long straigb.�,in
landiiig approach. This wil}-dif-
fuse the noise of landing����-
'CY3ft. .
D MAC will continue : its
home acquisition and hcZm�e
and school insulation .'pro-
grams, which have been'a�vell
received by those who have'tak-
en advantage of them. � ••
If the decision is made ngit to
build a new airport, MAC'�will
indeed be very serious aboiit
helping preserve ali the beauti-
ful areas in the southern parr�f
the Twin Cities rnetropolita�
area. MAC looks forward..to
working with O'Hara and ather
concerned residents to acc�om�
plish that end. , "
— J. Robert Stassen. Depiity
executive director, Metropoli-
tan Airports Commission.
� , i•,• 11 ' J: '' 1 1 1 1 I 1!�
A.irline �dez
masac/ops/Uaseln95.wk4 28/0?196
0
C
�
:
.:,
%I
;
►�
�
� r�,, . Minneapolis / St. I'aul Inier�ational Airport
--a � ...... � �--�.,.�:.� _
MONTHLY MEETING - Metropo[itan Airport Sound Abatement Cauncil
ci,a�.»,a�:
Rnbert P. Iohnaon
Vice Clnirman:
5mtt Hunin
zechn;rntitdvi+o�: �
Ja6n Fo�n
Secretary:
J� n�i�wn
Airbome Fsprcaa:
Orinn Butea
AirTmnrporf At.+ociation:
Paul McGraw
ALPA:
Clwrin W. Curry Jr.
City cjBlaomirtgton:
Peteooa I.ee
veeu wuon:
c,ry �a�,W;u�:
�� ��
c;ry �'�g�:
Tom F.gim
City oflmer Grove Neightr:
u4,es�,
City ofMendow Neightr:
]i� 9mitlt
� City ofMinneapo!'u: � .
�amn B.9arin
Ja6n Rkhter
1� �«
IodtW Dodee _
Cly ajRlchfield:
c�� ��.
Don rdebe
c,ry �s�.tA�, aa,�:
tmbns aa�..
cry �s1. aaur:
s�o�c eunin
Craig C. Weudc
Caeal Am McG�erc
n�tm,�,[,;�, t,�.:
w�n HIa�u
Fedeml Expra.r
T� xeao«t
Fedem/ Aviation Adminirtmtion:
sti� w�,00N
Roodd Glmib
MAC Sw;QS
Dick Kdnz
MBM:
RdxA a ld,n.on
MtsaGa Norllavut Airlin4:
I,awrmce McCabe
Metropolitan Airportr Commi.ttlarrt
comml.:ma n�wa ca�r
MNAirNational Guarti:
Mqjor Mnric R Ner
NoNhwutAirlinet: '
114ntk 9almm
Jrnaiter 9ayro
sr. r�,� cn� �c«�,�:
jack Baeitley
Sun ComUry Airliner:
� Guke A. Gomes .
lJnifed Airlikt Inc.:
Alion Tomlloua
Urtifed Parce! Service:
SINO WYII[M ` Plggy B/IIO3�
US. Air Forct Rererve:
Captain 9tevm Chapman
US.SupplemertralCarrim: � � �
Roberl A. hiis
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Declaration of Purposes
l.) Promote public welfare and national security: serve public interest, convenience,
and necessity; promote air navigation and transportadon, international, national, state,
and local, in and through tbis state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical
handting of air comm.erce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and internadonal
programs of air transportation; aad to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the
metropulitan area in this state as an aviadon center, and to correlate that area with all
aviati� facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and
effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area:
2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact
from sir navigadon and transportatio�. and to that end provide for noise abat$ment,
control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and
3.) Ptomote t,he werall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimi�p the
public's exposure to noise and safety hazards azound airports.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement,Council.:-
Statement of Purpose .
This corporatian was formed in furtherance of thegeneral welfare of the communities
adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Fielcl, a
public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Miru�esota, through the alleviatioai of
the problem$ created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and
evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestia� for the alleviation of (
the same; through inidatian. caordination and. pmmotia� of reasonable and effective
pracedures. control and regulations. consistent with the safe operation of the airport and
of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected
communities. their affected residents. and the users of the sirport respecting the
problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions
initiated and taken to alleviate the problem.
Metropolitan Aircraff Sound Abatement Council
Representation
The membership shall include representadves appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and
responsibility or control over the airport. or b�+ reas� of their status as airport users,
have a direct interest in the operation of the airport Such members will be called User
Representatives gnd Public Representatives, prwided that the User Representadves and
Public Representadves shall at all times be equal in number.
The Airport 2�-hour Noise Notline is 726-9411.
Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes
in Airport activiry, but provides a public sounding
board and airport informaiion outlet The hotline
is staffed 24-hours Monday - Friduy
"This report is prepared and printed in house by
Traci Fiickson, ANOMS Specialist
Questions or comments may be directed to:
' MAC - Aviation Noise & Satellite Program
Minneapolis / St Paul Intemational Airport
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Tel: (612) 725-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310
ANSP Home PaAe: http:/lwww.macavsa�or�
Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Programs �
r � � '
...., o����
�� ,
I
Operat�ons �cnd �`omplaini �umjraac�y 1
Operations Summary - -All Aircraft .....................................................................................1
MSP February Fleet Mix Percenta.ge ...................................................................................1
Auport February Complaint Summary ................................................................................ l
February Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office ..................................................1
�iit` '. r'i , � /. i • il /; i i � ,
ComplaintSummary by City ...............................................................................................2
. � �� . � �; ' i �
Tower Log Reports All Hours .....................................:.....................................................3
Tower Log Reports - Nighttirne Hours ................................................................................3
f�.11 O jJeratioiZS 4
Runway Use Report February 1996 .....................................................................................4
t' �) Carf-ier Jet Operations 5
Runway Use Report February 1996 .....................................................................................5
� � • I r� �' � r
Runway Use Report February 1996 ......................................................................................6
Nighttime C'arrie�,Iet �pe�ations 7
Runway Use Report February 1996 ............:........................................................................7
i � � I i �
� � r �„ ;
Aircraft Identi, fier and DescriptzonTable 9
' i � Ir � '� �r ' /i' i � l
Day�� xo� ...................................................................................................................lo
Community OverfCight Analysis 11 �
� � : .
`—� Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours
................................................................................... 11
6 ��
Carner Jet Operat�ons - Nightt�me (l lpm - am) ..........................................................
Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs
/
���_�.. _ • . ... / 7
.�' � . / � , � . . : . � . � . . � :� / /� � .�� / .� :
' � ./ �� / / . . ./ I� I . / / ..� :,. : � � �:
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ....................
/ � � ,; � ' / � � � , � ', , ; � � t,
�
.......................13
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT .....................:..........................14
, � �. . � � , , �, ,�
, � �, . � � . . �. .�'
; , � �, . � � . . �. ��
, � �, . � � , . �. ,�
, � �, • i � ' ' �' ,�
� , � �', . � � , , �, ,�
i
.
•
e
/
Flight Track Base Map 21 �
Airport Noise and C�perations 1�1'onitoring Systems Flight T�accks 22
Carrier Jet Operations - February 1996 .......................:.....................................................22
•' i � � � i i / i � i � � � � � � i
Carrier Jet 4perations - February 1996 .............................................................................23
A�rport 1�oise a�d .Operaiions M�nitoring System Flight �'racks 24
Carrier Jet Operati.ons - February 1996 :.............:............................................................. 24
Airport Noise and' Operat�ons l�onitoring System Flight Tracks 25
Carrier Jet Operations - February 1996 ..........................................:.......................:......... 25
A�calysis of 14.irc�°aft Noise Events - Aarcraft Ldn dB(A)
Analysas of Aarcr�t 1Vo�se �vents - Aircra„�'°t Ldn cd�(A)
.; a
. - - rl
�
Aviatio�n Noise & Sabellite Programs
�
m
�
' � , � . Metropolitan Airports Commissi�
•�perations ancl Complaint Summary
� �ebruary 1996
- Operations Summary - All Aircraft
' MSP February Fteet 1VIix Percentage
Airport February Complaint Summary
___
�� ��
MSP 749 ' 476
__ Airlake � � 0 0
Anoka 4 0
Csystal 1 0
Flying Cloud 8 3
Lake Eimo 0 0
St. Paul 7 1 _
� 11�isc. 1 2
February Operatio�is Suanmary - Airport �3ia•ectors Office
Aviatiaa Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 1
�fetropolitan :'1irEarts Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complagnt Surnmary
February 1996 �
Complaint Summary by City
���:>::::>::::::�:<::.:<:::::.:::::s<:<:: ::.>.:> :« .:::::::::::::::><::::�:::::::::::::::::>::;:::: :«:>:;::<;::::<���:�;�:::::>�:::<:<:>::>:;:::::::;::>:: :::::;>..�.<:><:�:::::;:::�;::::;:>�::;:>€�:;:;;:::.;:;.
�<::;:>.:::._*::�:;>::>:::�:;;<::>::«:>::> :::::::::::::::�:�><::::>� ::::>::::::::;:: .
: <>:> �.:��ti �::;:
<:::>::.....�* .
_ .. : � �1'it��::: <:: :z::<::>::::>�<::��i1�:s::<:.:::
'::>::::>?::<>:::;:>:::;:>::::»:::::<:
:::::>:. :::>::>:�
>:`i!::::: <:;>::::::::::::::::<:`::::>:s>::::::::. ::>: ::. :>::;::: »:`.<:::::: �?>::s»::::>::>:�:>::: ::<s:>:::;::: �:��'���s::::::..:. .
.........::.� :.... ::...........��� ........:..::::..: :.:::::.�:::.�...............................:.:.::. ::.�:::::�::::::;:::::::::::::: .:::::::::.::::::::::::: :.::.:.�:::::. :::::::.:::::::::::::.:�.::::.
::.�:.:.....� :::::::::::::::::.:::::::.�:..�:::.:::....:.:.............:. ::::.�.�::::::::::: :.::::: :::..:.... ........:....:::::.:..:....: :.:::::. ...�::.:::::..:....:.::::::.�: :.:.:�. :.�::::::::::::::::::.:.......:::::.
Apple Valley 3 8 11 2.4%
Bloomington 0 5 5 1.1%
� Burnsville 0 6 6 1.3%
Corcoran 0 1 1 0.2%
� Eagan 60 � 55 115 25.5%
Frlina 0 5 5 1.1%
Inver Grove Heights . 3 9 12 2.7%.
Mendota Heights 15 23 38 8.4%
Minneapolis 54 165 219 48.6%
. Plymouth 0 1 1 Q.2%
Richfield 0 5 5 1.1%
Rosemount . 0 1 1 0.2%
St. Louis Park 0 1 1 0.2%
St. Paul 4 16 20 4.4%
S. St. Paul 0 10 10 2.2%
Sunfish Lake 0 1 1 0.2%
W. St. Paul 1 0 1 0.2%
j,�� t!4::i,:' �. E � :::::::;:i;:;::o-::j•::::::: i::::::::::::i:::::: ;:::;:ii:'ri:::::i^:<o;::o.;.r::..ii:i::i#:::::i::i
::::::::::f:::::P::i:::::::::::;::::::i::r•::::S::P:::i:i:::::::::::::::r::i::::::::;;i:::i:::::>::: :::::::::::::>:::::i::t;::i:::'>:::iS::::::::::::: »:»o-: ! �j�/��f
•`:i`'iiiii":.�?...:`iiii:;?i::'r' .,.c< +�
iictt::tt:;:i:::f:i::i:::i:::ttiijjc::ctiiit::� ' 'itii::i:i::::i::::j:ij::::;::::ttE;t•`:::::jxt:i ::::it:;4'cc:::ii:��.'•i[f::i:ttift:Stti:: t:i:;`:[:':.......� �...... .. . . :::f:::[>:�i7�.'�i2:ii:c:;ii:::�:c :t2:t::::::i:::�i[;i11%:•'/{di'<i:i:::::iE:t�
�L ::.::::::::::.:•:::::.:::.:.:: .:::.::.�.:�::..............................::...:..:::....,::.:::..; ,
Time of Day Nature of Complaint
Page 2 Aviatiaai Naise & Satellite Programs
n
� '.', . .. ' '.l ����r �. ..
c �
:�, , .'. . . ..,,,• �� :'. � , i ; :' � . �_ .i � ���: � ,;
1
`t
. -
�
Nighttime Hours
:::>::><�
: �<::<�>;�:`;::;>_ ,.. ._,
Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Page 3
'�4etrnp�(itan Airports Commission
. , ;�, • � �
� � , � 1, 1 1 �
Page 4 Aviatio� Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airpans Commission
Carr�er Je� Operations
Runway �Jse l�2eport �ebruary 996
«>: �::'Q�1:?'1Q'
Aviatio� Noise 8c Satellite Programs
Page 5
'��tetr�pciiitan Airports Commission
Nighttime - All Operations
Use Report February
Paae 6 Aviatio�n Noise & Satellite Programs
�
C!
, . _ ` Metropolitan Airports Commissioai
Nighit�me Carrier Jet Operations
� iZunway Use 12eport February�1.996
Aviatiaai Noise & Satellite Programs P�e �
Metr��r�litan Airports Commission
Carrier Jet Operations by Type
. February 1996
i!y�(i� ..:.<:>.`y:::::�� :::::� ;>::��:::::
:.::;`�y:,:.:'�ili�k�:>:�::::�::;::::..��% . . .
'•`•i:::::iii' .�
.^+:::i:i::::::::::::>::::::::;::r:;::S::::;::i::k:::;::: S:�
::;:>z�il`�Y'��>;:.:>��.:::;..:`€::::: .:<: : ::.:...:::.:::::::::::::>::::::: .::::::::::.�:::::.�::�:.::::
.....�`�:::: .:..::.,•.;:..,.,...:::.;:::�.;.:::::::.: .:.;.:,::.::,:,:.;::,;.::::....:::.;.::
B707 0 0.0%.
B727H 271 ' l.l%
B733/4/5 844 3.4%
B747 187 0.7%
B74F 14 0.1%
B757 2063 8.4%
B767 0 0.0%.
BA46 119 0.5% �
CL65 321 1.3%
DA10 0 0.0%
DC 10 972 3.9%
DC87 98 0.4%
DC9H 2344 9.5%
EA31 38 0.2%
EA32 1936 7.9%
FK10 1049 4.3%
L1011 190 0.8%
1VID11 6 0.0%
MD80 I21� 4.9%
BA10 0 0.0%
BAl l 2 0.0%
B727 3589 14.6%
B�37 1477 5.9%
DCS 8� 0.4%
DC9 7802 31.7%
FK28 0 0.0%
.::,.. . ::::�:<:�;:�:�:::::;�<:::::>: ::>::::>:::::;::"� �'.��'��� '� :`�;::>:<::::::: ��::::>;>`:::::::'�:;;::'�`;:'"';>::'€<::::<``�
>`'>:::<::::>;:;:":�a�:::�:.:.:: :.::::::: .. ::::::::::.."�.�.......�....�''....�,..�::::: :.: .::::::: :::��'.�'..,�.....::::::::::
Page 8 Aviati� Noise Fi Satellite Programs
� �', ��- /f'�
�
•> ' . I i '"
�
B707
B727
B727H
B733/4/5
B737
B747
B74F
__ B757
B767
. BA10
BAll
BA46
CZ65
DA10
DC10
DC8
DC87
DC9
DC9H
EA31
EA32
FK10
FK27
FK28
L1011
1VID11
MI780
SW3
SW4
SF34
Metropolitan Airports Commissian
Aircraft Id.entifier and. I�escrip��onT'able
BOEING 707
BOEING 727
BOEING 727 - H[JSH KTT ,
BOEIlVG 737-300/4�/SOU
BOIING 737 100/200 SIItIES
BOIING 747
BOEING 747 FREIGH'TER
BOEING 757
• BOEING 767
BRTTISH AIItOSPACE 125
BRTTISH AEROSPACE 111
BRTTISH AEROSPAGE 146
CANADAIlt 650
FALCON 10
MCppNNII,L DOUGLAS DC10
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DCS
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 70-SIItIES RE
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9
MCDONNII..L DOUGLAS DC9 HUSHKITI�
AIRBUS INUUSTRIES A310
AIl2BUS IlVDUSTRIES A32U
FOKI{EIt 100
FOKKER F27 (PROP)
FOI�ER F28
Lp� TRISTAR L1011
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DCIl
MCDONNE[. L DOUGLAS DC9 80-SE,RiES
� SWE.ARINGEN METROI.INER3
SWEARINGEN METROLINER 4
SAAB 340
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 9
?�tetr��+cilitan Air��orts Commission �
Runway TJse - I�ay/lilight Periocis - All Operations
Mir�neapolis - St. Paul International Airport February 199.6
Daytime Hours �-
Nighttime Hours
Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
l
� '
Metropolitaa Aiiports Comm.issio�n
. Comrnun�ty Overfiight A.nalysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport February 1996
' Carrier Jet Operations - Atl Hours
Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (llpm - 6 am)
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 11
'��fetropolitan Aicpons Commission
`..
ltemote Monitor�ng 5ite Locations
Airport Noise and Ope�ations 1Vlonitoring �ystem
Page 12 Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airpo tLs Commission
, � , � . . �, � . .
. � �
� "� ,; ; � � �.
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RIVIT
::>:' >:`<:;:�� ��'��`;;`'><�:�;:>
>:::>;: : :.>:;><:>:.:<:::;:::::;: <>>>:<:::::>::>::>::>::::>::»:::;>::::::�::>:::<:>:::::>::>::>:::::><:> :>::::;:;:::;::�:::>:>::>::::::>:::<::<:::::::::>::;::._,:€:::::::>::::::::::>�<::::>:::::>::>;:::>::>::::>:::«:::»>�:;>::::::>;:::�: �::::�>.«::>::::::><:::>::::<:::::::>: :>:::::�>:�:�::>::::>::::>:::>>«:;::;�::: :::::::>::;::>::::::>::>::>:<::::<:::> y
.. . . ... . .. .. ...,;..>; :::>::>�:�en "�::::... ... . en� ....
::�::::: ��� ...:
. . .::.;: � ...�
<»:::� .�.. �<:>::»:: <> ::::::::::::::::>::>�:::<:>::>:::::::�::»:::>::::>::::>::::>:::$>:::::::::::;>:::>::2:::::>;::::>:::;::::<;>::>::<:;:>::::>;:::>:::<::<:::>::<:r:;::;:::::»::«::<;<:<;::>:;:>>;:>::»:,;::>::::>y:::>:::::::::> � �: �.� � � �::>::> . .. ..........�.... ..................h.s.... .
:::: ::::::: ::................... ........:::::::::::::::::. .:.... .............. :. :...::::::::. .::::. . . .::. �. �:.: .. ............ ...... : :::..::::..��.k.."K��.... ...........::. �::: �:::: .::..:::.................... ........................:.
.::.RM.'�':::::: :::.:�:.:�:.�.�::::: . > . .:: :............:::::::..:::::. .:......:....... :. . .: :: . . . . .... ..........:.:::::::::::::::.::::::::::................. .::::::::::::::::::::::::::..:::::::.:: :.::::::::::::::
; . :: ..: : :. ..: .: : �u�:�:>::::;>:<::::::>:>.,:.:.:> :�:��<:>:::: :>::>::::<;;::: :.:.;;::::.;::><::: >::>::>:::>.. ;...,;..:....::»::::::::>�>:::;: ;� � ::: : : �:>;::
:::»;::::�::::::::::>:::::>::::»::::.< :::::::::::::»_:::<<:;:::. >::: :. ::<;::>.:;:::::::>::>::>::::>::::::><>. :. : . �. . ..... .. .. ... .
:::::::: . .:::.:::::.::.::>::.�::::::.�:��� ::.:::::::::.�:::::::.>::�. : .1�.��:��:...'��...��:�..:..:.�..:�:::::.:.:: :.::. ... . . . :::.>: .:::. . . .:.�:. :.::.... .:::..:.:::. ..
::::::::: : .:.�::::::.:.:...:.:..:�:.:�:.:�::::::.j.�...::::.::::.�:::::::::........��?!.::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.....::.:::::, :.::::.�. .. ... ..... ...... ::::.::::: :.. . .......... .. : .:::::
.........� ......:...::::::::: :::::::::::.:.:.................::..::.::.:..:...::::::::::::::::::::::::::........... . ..... ..:. :.:::.����::::: :::��.�it�d8.::.
:::::.;�.;: ; :;::;:.;:.;:.:: :.::.:.:::.::::.�:.::...................:........................................... .. . :..:.:................................... ... ...:.�f�'�:.;:.:::.:::.:�8��:..: ..........................................:..........
::.::..J�::;;:;.::.;: �;::.:;::;:.:.;::<.::::.:;;:.:;:.::.::>:.;:.::.;::.:::.:::.::;; :.::.;:.;::.;:.:>:.;::.>:.>:.;>:::.;::.»;::.:;;::.:>;:.;:::.::.:�::::.� ::::::::::::::::::.::.::.>:.::::.;:.::.>.>.:>:.:..::::.�::::::::. ::::.:::::::::::::::::.: � . .::::::::: :.:::.:�:::::::::..:::::::.:�:::::::.�.:�::.
. .................. ......... .......................
1 Minneapolis Xexxes Avenue & 41st Street 2052 lOS 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue Fc 43rd Street 14'78 151 3 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 2088 864 53 0
4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th S�t 1954 488 1 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street . 2080 1338 302 0
6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 1821 1083 162 0
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave 8c 64th Stneet 416 11 0 0
8 Minneapolis Langfellow Avenue 8z 43rd 5treet 615 23 0 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 37 11 0 0
10 " St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 66 38 1 0
11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 23 1 0 0
12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwoad Avenue 27 8 1 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 43 1 0 0
14 Eagan First Street & McKKee Street 6891 336 3 0
15 Mendota Fieights Cullen Street & Lexingtaa� Avenue 2fi4 33 1 0
16 Eagan Aval� Avenue & V'�las Lane 5653 2900 41 0
17 Bloomington 84th Sh�et & 4th Avenue 99 36 1 0
18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 88 45 1 0
19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 27 4 0 0
20 Richfield '75th Street 8t 3rd Avenue 15 0 0 0
21 Inver Crrove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Stre�t 188 4 0 0
22 Inver Grrne Heights Anne Marie Trail 3141 47 1 0
23 Mendota Aeights . End of Kenndon Avenue 2840 136 2 0
24 Eagan Ghapel Lane & Wren Lane 5838 241 31 1
Aviatioa Noise & Satellite Programs Page 13
�ic�rc���litan Airnorts Commission
Carrier Jet Departure IZelated Noise Events
February 1996
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT (
�[��/� >::: ��::€::��e�ts�:::><::<:>��><;>``.>.>.::>:::
. . . . .. .. ..... .......... ............................ ......... ............ ... ............................................ .... .
>:.;::::�:>+:y:>�,j;:,�. :>:::'<:>?:::; ::::::>:::::: <_>:>::::>::::::::> :::::::::::::>:::::>:::<:>::::;>::::>:<<:<:; :::<:>':>::::>::<::::::>�:�:::>::>'':;<<:<::�:::::::::::<�:::>:::<':;:;::�>:<;:;>::::>::::::<�:�<:::::>::::::»:::::........
�>::::::><::���n ` :::>::: ::<::::��:e� :::.. . �r�ts:...
>'>�` .......� .... ::::....:........
:::::. . ::::ii}v: :::i:::i::i::::::} i::ii:i::::.:::::j•iiii:::i:::i':i::?:i}:ti:i: :::i:i:::i:::i:i::::i:::i::i::i::ii:iv:::i:::::::i:`:::r::Y".�'r'+i:::i:::t::::i:i:� `�i:::ii:::::?::i"::I::{tii::::i:... .. ...
..... 1\11.1�� ..... ................::.. . �..::n�: :...:.:..:...... ...... ........:....v.. . . . ::. . . . . .. .. .. . . i. . .:.�: ::::::::::::::::::�:::: .:::::.:::................. ................:::::::':v:. yi:::::::::::.�:::::::::::
.. .Y� ��i:i':i :::•:•:ti:::::i:Y:�.:tv'��:4iii::::•::::: :::i:•:::•:::::hiii:��:''. ...'::4::i :::i}::•,>:::•,::�i:i:i�.iiiii:::':':::•: ::::•:::L::•:iJ�iO::•":::::i:!.ii:�i::
�::: ':i��Yh
;::>:;:::::::�:�:>�::«<::<::::>:.>;:<::::::�::;:<:::::� :::: ::::.: .: :;:::>::;::>::>::»::::»:::::::_:::• •:. : .:.: �ut��;���.�,+
;:::::>;>. . . ::.::.::.;:::...:::.:.:<.:.>:.::;.:::::::.:���� :::.::::;�:.;:::::.:;.;::. ;:.;::�: : � .:................:...........................................:.. :.::. ... . :
...:::. : �?!� :................ ............................:: ::.:::::: :::.::::::::::. ......
: :.::::. . .. .::::.�::: ::::::::::::: ::.::::::: ::..:�:::::::::::::::::::: ... : . .:::<:.: ;::;:>.: �:>::>:: :»>::.. �.. :::::>::::::. ��.: : ::»
.::.::::��p��:;:;:.>;:��:. �d�:.;:
::.;:.;;::.::. : :. ::.>:.;>;:.:: :;<;<:.:;.;:.>:.:;.;:.;;:.::;;.:::.::.>;:.::.;:.:.:.:.:.>:.: :.:.:.:.:::.: ;.;;:.;:.:.: �;::.::.::.;::;.;>::::::>::>::;::;�:::::>::>::>::::::::>::>::>::::::::>::;>:.::::.;:.::.;::.:;::.:.;:::.;::.::. :.:.:.::: .. � :<:<. .:.. �: .���;:.... ..... . . . Q .
.......... .......... ................................................. .................::::::............................................................::..: :.�: ���:.: :. .::::�.................. ........................... ..........................
........: � ..::::.... .................................................. ....:.:.::::::::......................................................::::::::::::.:.:.. ........................... ........................... ........................... ...........................
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 1098 341 11 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue 8c 43rd Street 1343 413 � 11 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Helmont Avenue 2647 500 63 1
4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 3384 978 93 3
5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue 8c 58th Street 7133 3435 1022 151
6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 5'7th Street 8054 4452 2122 533
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave Fi 64th Street 4741 1433 185 8
8� Minneapolis Langfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 2568 778 63 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 79 8 0 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 218 16 3 0
11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 77 11 2 � 0
12 St. Paul Alton Stneet Fi Rockwood Avenue 178 5 1 0
13 Mendota I%ights Southeast end of Mohican Court 526 123 7 0
14 � Eagan First Street & McKee Street ?.4�W 771 68 5
15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexingtaai Avenue 1927 649 70 0
16 Eagan Aval� Avenue Rc V'ilas Lane 2499 893 143 12
17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 311 39 2 0
18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 513 204 63 3
. 19 Blaomington � 16th Avenue & 84th Street 297 130 33 2
20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 844 43 4 0
21 �Inver Crrrne Heights Barbara Avenue 8c 67th Street 10$9 221 3 0
22 Inver Grrne Heights Anne Marie Trail 1251 196 2 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 3422 1274 457 57
?� Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 1930 410 14 0
C:
Page 14 Aviation Noise &r. Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Comm.ission
Ten I.,�udest A.�rcraft Nogse Events Iden�ified
RMT #l: Xerxes Ave. & 41st S�
Minneapolis
RMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave.
Minneapolis
RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd 5t.
Niinneapolis
RMT #4; Oakland Ave. & 49th St.
Minneapolis
Aviation Noise & 5atellite Programs
Page 15
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�
Ten I.�oudest Aircraft Noise Events -Id.entifieci
RMT #5: 12th A�e. & S8th S�
Minneapolis
RMT #7: Wentworth A�ve. & 64th St,
Richfield
R1ViT #b: 25th Ave. & 57th St.
Minneapolis
RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
IVlinneapolis
Page 16 Aviatic� Noise & Satellite Programs
(
�
Metrope�itan Airports Comm.ission
, � � ,• • , 1 ' ' � � � �
RMT #9: Saratoga S� & Hartford Ave.
St. Paul
RMT #11: Finn St. �i Scheffer A�e.
St. Paul
RM.T #10: Itasca A�e. & Bowdoin St.
S� Paul
RMT #12: Alton St. & Rockwood A�e.
S� Paul
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 17
�Zetropolitan Airports Commission �..
Ten I.oudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court
Mendot� Heights
RMT #15: Cullan St. & Lexington Ave.
Mendota Heights
RMT #14: lst S� & McKee S�
Eagan
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
Eagan
Page 18 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commissior�
Ten Loudest A.ircraft Noise Events Id.ent�fied
RMT #17: 84th St. & 4th Ave.
Bloomington
RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th St.
Bloomington
RMT #18: 75th St. & 1'7th A�e.
Richfield
RMT #20: 75th S� & 3rd A�e.
Richfield
Aviatioai Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 19
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�
Ten Loud.est Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
Inver Grove Heights
RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave.
Mendota Heights
RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail
Inver Grove Heights
R1VIT #24: Chapet Ln. & Wren Ln.
Eagan
Page 20 Aviatio�n Noise & SaGellite Programs
(
�
�
�
I j
n
� Metropolitan Airports Commissioa
Fl�ght Tirack Base 1VIap
Airport Noi�e anc�. C)pera�ions Monitoring 5ysterr�
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 21
�� r � a :��� '��\\\�:L��� �
�'� � ?;~��\V� * � �`�J► �• -"�
\ �� .
;';� '� ' �`�a�\\� ,��i"''�
i� ' . .� :\\ '�� ;�� ,r
. t
: ,� . ,������i��
r �� �`\) �
r .���\ `ti:. _
'�. . i� `..�\1. '
��%Av •\\ - '
r ��+ ,'r / � ln
'. � / � -
t�'
:i , ,, � iM� „� .
! �'„�,,,,,,�C .?„�i
' � •� 1?'''O ■ � j ,
� � ` ' '����'�i�G
��� 7�:� �!i� � i
, .c
, •.:. n
,._�I�:"\.� � I:
;; � �� w�.`.
=-"�-"��:.�.►�ii�e.a '
— '_��.� ���`•� ?
.�i��rC
�►-._---- ,......__ �
'��J31 .'� ii„r" .
r -_ �.,.
;� � � ..itlr�u�"�.=i • , -. .. �... .
_ _ , ��
l''f//�""._...ii��.--._. i�n�: . \e;...!'. '.... . . . .. . .
.�� -a"�`�--.c "... . :. \ , . • . .
. .
�,•�`�- � _ ' . z: .,, . .',
`'�a�,;�.��.�� ���� ....... �� . .: ...
�.�.�\� \� �\ _
ti�� �
. `� \� � r
' '� ��;�u
... ., .
,." _ �i , ' ' , ,.:.�.
�.�
.• :
.:.. .4 , �� �
�1.
1 `=�,.
% ��v\ ��� ��
...`. �,�,..c,� � '�.�
�� _ � r .\.
. . . ,, .,
�
� ',.
`'i;�
��,-
``
� � ' �,� �`�`q y� � �'y����/1
`i �\ 1�'�','u. -'� ���; �� ° �� Il�IEII�
� � � . . , .�r
I �\�`� 1;;►;���r,1�;;�; �''.�\����!��� ir
���,��aur o „ �: �� ��, 1 L � i
����\���dit��i111� �\�� �,�'1tri,
��N����!�� ��1 ��I _ ��1�V�' �.► � I �
i �.-�� �`�������ill � ♦ �'. y �,�'��,...
c��i�I ``f � 9� �Iq �� � � \��� _.
r. .� `•�
1��'s". � : -- �:
.,� � -
�� /�� .✓,n/
r �%i/� �r � � '
I�'� %�/q� r F � �� ' . . =,
��'���'.�I:��:i � i . i a:r�` �'ii ► '
�''4Yard.lj „ � � +��•�r1 �__ .
� ::;: s ' �\l � \�`/, . * �-. ..�
. ; � a��•��riy�•�� �c
\\� �������i'p:
� � �,
J � ~ \` i' ����' ti
�:�.���` �,` ..�� •� :
;"--��..-_
_=-. :':;.
�—'�� ��.�� �
� _'\ _ Y,\�.
�_ \\
���� �` �`�\��\.
.r��ir"'1�►-._.""""--:!.._����\\�`�� �``.
...� < . •. � � - .
v\\�'��'`� ��!� .I� ,°��I4, �'' ' — %
��\�\,V�,�t�� � eA.
q, � r �
�\\\,,,`,`,I� 1`,'' � � ` _
���v:�,.\���i�,
� ��\`�A.�i�•' � .
� � �,
,;:;:�,
�� .t
. w � �v � �-, �•
„ ��� . � :► ��'~ \� \\ �.
t _, � � �`�. .
<i•, .-�"�.11"!�' `���;,° � ,` .
t�.ls t �I� .�. �! ..�
•,P:': ! ..;!' 1r� . �: �` � �, �� =,
�; � .,,, �`.► � �\\; �
�; ► � � � �� '_ � �:
��ill r .� �' � ��. ..- `�.^;
. ' ' ,� // ; �� ��\ \ `�`' `r's���
.. � � �1�,���, ���\\` `. \"!I
. . �� � ��>��`' �1�„ ��\'"1j��
� � `��; �� � \ ��\�/�\
��� �� ���) \\� \\`•p _ `�
'� ���� `':��� 1!\�f'�
�`���\ �������,��",� �.
\..�� � �`�;���� �
. ``��1' ��;1 t�',`��
� . �
���: � ��`
.�� ., �Q1�„�
. -��� ;�.;��..
, .�.. .. .:....._
��,�%� F �ti�i►•�
, ~���''1' �' �'lii:;i
� � :,.-�-,...i,,!�.
, � \.\c, ,,�. �
. ��!• ` �
�. ��!'.
�� _ ��`�., •
t i j`; : n� :.�' .�
:
- .
.. r
��I/„i� � :=`.�..,
f'11111► •
n
! �ii i � � .
� ��.tl�� . � '
- i ..%�i
.,►;. - '
�J�=: ` -
. �. �. �. s t ..,' ,� '
? Y � r
. �� ..� � `•W � r . � %�
��,±'` �����
- � i
r+ ,.
,�.►= •, � ;,.
=+. � f ����;� , `�
ri%I/,►`�\\�! �
�����`w;���` t �
�'i � `\��Z ` � , '
!.,-�+'�I������\��'h: �. � .,. .
.. _ :,, „_
�, �*� ; � �
.
� . .
, � .
..
:
,,. `": �...` • '
.�,. ,�-,. ,.,, , ,�► ; • ', : ..
; •� `��':.c ,.
. ' , ;.
. \� ,\ \
�� �� ' � , �
� . .
,, , . • .
;- y. • •-: .. � ' � _:., '. : ' .:
' . . '` �.: � �..i
'�I%�'' � �
�III /I "+% I �` .
�.� ��I\1. ���.. �`��J%�.� �
4 .\\`�RFt '%
.
, • .�... . ..
' � � \ �,.� . •:
� ' - � � ♦ � . ' ''
, . �. . �� �i.. �
, � . .. ►
.�
/ t�
iI
�
i � f �
r � 4r'` � u' " ; q\-.���,� �
� �� � t� ��
,� ; r„� �•�,� r /�l�'`
) � � i \�,.v\ �� � -��
' t \�� �l;;�
�,� �� \`!`\ � '�
, \l��-
' } ��:,����.�
� , ; � ' i �;;:.-�•;.•,�l; .
� � •.. .nu � - _ •►�
�1'n�,fil►`.�;, � . : ��a� � ,
' ...� �,.f �ii.����\�`���� „��� �..
1
�
��' ,I�y / �♦'I .-n�,. �:..\\ - .
y i.: ' /�.!li/ a at a G . � / �// . �
. i �,\1�t����� ,'���,�'.���1'" n . ♦ I
s�. ��►�, �Jv�O� li����� %
� _ i _� ,
A � � • S
♦ � 1 �
�. �� If � �I ��' C _
y� ; ,' ��
3��\.,� \,!//�', �
� �, - . •. \ . /�/ 1
� � - � �` `•.'-' ,� -
�`��. ♦ '' � l
�
_�'�'�%►`a:� , '• ''
�
��/����. ��� �•
���r�� r►. u�� � : � ` :
.�
����i�•���U���rn � `\���}
s.;is ; � .� ... i�\� .�
wl'f.1.�:���r:�: a�� . . ..... ... . .. .... ..
♦ '�.�.'� .' ` . .
.`\\\\t,,.'`^-,�` `,� �O i �- ``�:
�'�\\\\ �V' \ � ..
`�:.��� � r.0
'> �� '�\ � '��\`►�r��� 1 .:;��
�.`�� \�\� -`�... ,..
: \ � � � .�t��
_` �```\�n 1.
. � � . : _ .i.� � . � .. �-.
a,,..:� ,`ti` . t� .., � �. ��\
�"�"`^ " .� ��♦'\ � \ .
��/'�. I \_ \`�•\ \� .
�' �j'/// �\__-`���� '.�
/%,r/� � .""�c: %=►%���•
/�:. , „�e -- - :,>s f
`>..
%�;s, „t��'I,C• I��.. '
.,�..' ; ��,,\`1'r ,1�, '♦ :;
' ��'j�
, �',� i �„
. ' '��► ���!ii
�`� ���iJ . �•
. _ .
•. • ..; ` ,��
:' " a : �\:
i �.i �t,�`�'
�,�,..I l'. . ... _. \_���1�\`\
tiictropolitan Aimnrts Commission ���
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn d�(A)
February Ol to �'ebruary 29,1995
Noise Monitor Locations
::��:��� �����1�>::::: �::::>:�� ���::::<; :`;"##�:�:::>':
>::»:::>::>:::»::»:::<::::::.:;<: <::::.>:;.>;»>::;:::> �::::<.>;::.>::»::>:>::::::>::»::>::>:.::;::::.>::>:>::::>:<.:>:.»::»;::>:::::::::;::::»>:: <::;::;::»::::::.;:.::<:::»:::;:»»:;>::::»::;:>:::;�:.;:.>:::.:.»:::>::::::::»:.::;>:.>::;:::
��:::: :::::�<��<�::;:::::...�� ......... . �,..
::::::: `���::::::�fi:::':>: :::>::::::�'�:<:<`:;` ::<:«'#$:�: .. ..
::>::>::>: ��::::::.:;::::: �::>::>:: :<::>:::>:::: ,:>::»> ::::::;::: �::::::»::>:: :::>::>:;�: :..::>::>::::: ::::::>::>:.:;;.;;:;:;<;: ::;::;;::::::: ::::.
>::;>:<::: :: . . ..:;::::;:::: «::::> . ::>::»:: :::;:::> : :::>::>:: >::>::>� .: :<::;::: :::>:<>:
.::.::.::: .. . .>:;.:;:::.:;.:;:. : .::::.;::.;:.;:.. . :.:>::.::.; :.::. ...::.::.::.:.>«<:�#'�::::;::><:::;»::, .�'�..��.:>:... ....
.......lD��e...... .....#�...... .....�."�,� ...::.:..:.: :��.::::: ::................ .................. .............:::.. ....:....:..:.... .......:..::: ::.: .:.::::::.:::::.�.� ::::: :.:::::::::.: ::: :.::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::
1 65.4 64.2 65.3 69.3 76.8 '78.0 71.3 66.4 51.6 52.3 48.1 *
2 65.4 66.0 65.5 69.6 77.1 80.9 72.3 69.3 50.4 53.5 49.$ *�
3 62.3 61.5 62.8 63.2 75.6 789 70.8 63.2 51.4' 46.0 49.6 *
4 53.5 55.9 62.6 62.9 73.6 '73.9 59.6 56.6 415 52.5 * *
5 54.6 56.1 � 57.3 60.4 73.2 75.7 64.0 58.3 50.2 47.8 47.5 *
6 59.6 62.3 64.8 69.4 74.0 77.8 64.4 59.6 48.0 62.7 47.7 *
� 58.3 59.9 64.1 67.8 76.6 80.2 69.8 64.2 47.2 60.6 47.3 57.7
g 59.4 60.8 65.2 66.6 76.0 79.2 70.3 65.7 56.5 59.4 53.3 54.0
9 59.5 60.6 67.8 67.2 77.4 79.1 66.6 65.1 46.7 639 43.5 57.6
iQ 56.6 59.7 62.3 64.4 76.1 �8.4 69.� 64.3 37.8 54.8 39.5 47.$
11 61.4 59.$ 66A 66.4 76.3 80.6 70.3 63.9 45.3 47.4 44.7 40.2
12 58.9 57.9 62.3 65.5 ?4.3 79.1 68.9 63.4 52.1 52.3 47.2 54.6
13 61.2 60.8 63.3 65.3 * 79.5 70.1 66.8 51.9 58.3 52.4 56.6
14 62.6 61.9 64.0 68.7 77.6 * 71.0 � 66.6 41.7 50.5 43.0 58.8
15 60.5 62.5 64.0 65.3 75.6 78.4 71.3 66.4 50.2 48.6 49.4 50.8
1( 59.2 63.3 64.8 67.3 '77.4 80.7 68.3 � 64.8 42.4 59.5 45.8 59.7
1'7 56.4 55.4 62.6 64.4 7'7.8 77.6 72.7 62.6 53.4 60.0 41.2 *
1g 58.4 60.3 679 64.2 76.0 71.8 60.8 56.2 49.4 58.2 45.3 *
19 59.4 61.4 66.7 65.0 73.3 72.1 39.3 59.2 52.6 63.4 49.5 *
20 59.1 57.4 63.8 67.5 '76.4 78.9 71.3 62.2 45.3 60A 56.6 *
21 57.5 60.4 67.7 65.2 73.8 72.2 62.6 62S 4ZA 56.8 45.3 *
22 66.4 66S 72.3 67.4 76.0 74.2 * 61.3 48.9 61.4 52.5 *
23 64.3 63.6 70.7 67.2 78.8 791 68:7 63.0 38.4 � 55.0 39.1 *
24 56.5 60.1 66.4 671 77.6 78.4 67.1 61.9 42.7 57.5 43.5 *
2$ 57.4 59S 64.� 61.4 70.4 72.4 61.3 60.2 43.4 49.3 43.6 *
26 63.8 * 68.5 65.0 72.7 70.9 59.5 * 48.1 51.3 48A *
2'7 60.3 * 66,2 67.0 77.9 78.9 69.4 64.0 * 50.1 40.8 *
2$ 60.0 59.8 60.9 63.1 74.5 78.7 68.4 63.8 52.5 46.5 53.2 38.1
29 58.3 58.0 59.5 65.7 73.8 79.2 68.6 64.3 44.6 53.7 * 49.8
Mo. Ldn 61.2 61.5 66.0 66.5 76.0 78.3 69.0 64.6 51.8 58.8 52.6 61.9
* Less than twenty four hours ofdata available
Page 26 Aviatian Noise & Satellite Programs
(,.
�� <
Metropolitan Airports Commissio�n
�� Analysis �i A.ircrait l�t�ise Events -.A.ircra�t I.dn d�(A)
� � �'ebruary Ol to February.29,1995
Noise Monitor Locations
`;:::::: <'>::�::::::
� �::�::: ::::::#,�.... .
>;::»::;>::>::>:::::>:.>::::»::»: :>:::::::::::>:::�::::>::.>::;::::>::>:.:;;::»:::::>;::>::>::»::>::>::>:::<.:::>;:<:»>;:.;::::::::;:.>::>::>:.>::>:;:>;>:::>:>::::. ::;.;:. ;::::.:::>:<:>:.>:.::.;:.::.::.::.;:::.;:.;:<:.;;.;>::»::;:.::.;:<:>::::::.::�::>;::.;:>:
::>::»>:.:�.:>::;:�::::::>::::;>:: �:::>:::..�::;� �:::» ::::>:>�:.::.::.::::::>::>:::: ��:�::;�::::<:::>:<:>:��::.:::•::>::> :::>:::::.: ;:::::::>::::::::>:. : :..:;:,.:::::::::..:,::...:::;;: ::;;>:..:,::::::::::::::::>:....,, :....::..::::::.��........
� .;�< :. ::::. . .. : ...; : .. . :>::: ::>:::��:::>:::: :::<:: � .... ................. ........ :.:::::::
� �... .... �: ......... . ....... .........
.
:::.�:: .. .. ...:::.::.:<:.;:.: : .; .:>::>:::::: . : ::<::>::>::<: :::. :::::>:;;::: , :.��::::::::>;:>: ::::>:::::::: �::::; : : :»,:.>::>. :�:>::::::<::: . ......................
::.�::: .. ::::::. :::. . .:. ...: .:::. :. . .... ..:.. : :::: :.�: . fi.:::..::::�1,'�:::. .:.#��.$::..:.:.��€.......:.:. :::::::.:�::::::: ....: :.:.�:::::::..::.� :.::.�.�:::.>: :<.::.::<.:;>:.::::::. ::::.::;::.::.::.;:.>
:::.�:: . .:::::. .� :: .: . .::.. ..::���:::: ::..���:::: ::::�'�..........:::::::::.�:::::: ..�:::.:.: .........::::::::::::::... :::::::::::::::.: .:::............::..::::::::::::::... ::::::.�.�:::::::. ::::::.:...::.:::.
.:::::.��.�....... .:: �� :::. :......:.::::::::: ::::::.:........:.:::::::::::::.:�:. .:.::::::::.�::::: .:::::::.::::::::.....: :.:::::::::::: ...:.::::::::.�:: .::::::::::::::... .:.::: :.::::::::::. ................. ............
.. ... ..
::::::>::::::::<:.:::::>::>::::<:::>:<::. ::>>:::::<:;::>:;::::>::: ::>:::<.::::::>:::;::>:::: :::>:::::;:.::.>::.:.::::. >.::.::.>::.;:.::«.. � : ::::::::::::. �:::. :.:::::: ...:.:.... ...... . .
1 41.1 67.9 51.0 72.1 61.7 67.8 68.7 59.6 44.9 61.7 58.8 66.1
2 47.4 68.5 50.5 72.2 56.5 58.8 51.6 57.5 48.0 62.3 63.9 67.6
3 48.1 70.5 56.2 72.6 48.4 54.7 45.6 51.1 56.0 62.1 67.2 68.4
4 54.9 67.0 64S 69.5 53.8 61.1 60.3 48.1 59.4 59.5 72.0 63.4
5 38.6 58.1 55.9 65.6 57.5 70.9 67.2 60.7 46.4 46.1� 59.3 59.4
6 61.2 66.4 69.8 69.3 49.0 SS.9 43.4 52.3 60.9 61.6 74.6 62.8
� 50.6 65.7 63.2 70.9 55.1 67.7 66.2 56.8 48.5 58.8 68.3 67.1
g 44.7 65.2 60.6 71.9 59.8 69.7 66.7 62.2 50.3 58.9 66.5 63.2
9 56.9 69.2 68.9 72.1 56.9 68.4 65.1 54.4 58.'7 63.0 74.9 63.3
10 49.7 69.0 56.6 71.7 60.7 69.4 ' 72.3 56.5 50.9 63.4 63.3 685
11 * 63.6 48.2 68.3 45.2 56.2 41.4 53.7 * 60.0 59.9 63.8
12 51.3 69.7 59.3. 69.3 53.8 60.8 54.7 50.8 535 63.4 65,2 65.9
13 52.1 64.7 66.5 70.6 52.6 63.0 56.9 57.8 55.4 60.4 72.4 63.4
14 * 63.0 50.2 67.6 55.4 62.0 48.6 57.4 * 58.2 60.2 62.3
15 * 61.7 53S * 55.0 � 57.3 50.1 56.5 * 55.6 56.9 61.0
16 56.4 63.7 62.3 68.4 �57.0 66.0 67.6 52.3 48.8 58.1 65.6 63S
l� * 64.6 60.9 69.0 �51.9 64.6 64.6 51.1 48.6 57.6 62.1 61.6
],g 62.9 66.9 68.2 69.2 �.52.6 61.6 58.6 58.0 63.4 61.9 77.1 64.7
19 63.4 69.8 69.2 72.2 43.1 57.'7 46.4 * 64.3 65.6 77.0 68.3
20 * 66.5 51.3 70.0 ' S1.6 58.0' 40.1 52.6 � 52.2 58.8 59.7 61.7
21 61.7 69.8 66.5 71.7 62.0 62.4 40.5 45.3 61.5 62.4 75.9 65.8
22 62.1 70.8 72.1 * 54.9 61.3 28.6 37.6 65.3 66.1 * 67.8
23 � 58.1 70.2 65.9 72.6 49.9 62.8; 66.0 54.3 56.8 61.8 73.7 65.3
24 45.6 64.3 58.8 69S 60.4 72.�.= 71.6 61.1 475 58.7 64.6 54.4
25 57.7 69.9 62.8 72.4 66.4 66.� 48.8 51.8 61.9 61.6 ?2.3 66.5
26 * 71.5 65.6 75.7 60.2 64.3 46.8 46.2 62.7 64.0 * 68.3
2� * 65.1 56.3 69.0 47.3 54.4 46.1 54.1 * 61.2 65S 64.1
28 * 62.7 � 4'7.8.. 69.2 55.3 60.6: 59.8 53.8 * 5'7.9 56.4 62.0
29 * 63.7 62.7 68.0 58.2 61.1;, 61.8 61.6 * 58.6 65S 62.3
Mo. Ldn 61.1 67.7 65.4 71.1 59.0 65.4 64.1 57.8 58.3 61.5 71.7 66:5
" LCSS li7Q71 lWCit[y jOUf IiOUTS u) tww u rwus��c
Aviatian Noise & Satellite Programs Page 27
.�
�#:,
C�
�
�
�
�r `' `�-'�_ �� '�; •..���....:�� �`���.�-'� -.4 � � _ s , �
-��I�_ b` `�'= `,` 1`�' ��~`�"�\,����\ \ , i� � h ! t 7
..`�... , .. \`�`�...--.,,�,�,,-�.,.. ,. .
� �--•�•��•.;- ..�.1► �� -.r' � �F . � , . _
� � `�� ' � ;
-�Ii�1p:'�.._.1��„�:��..�'",;,,,:.� � �ir�,••,. ' ' : " � �' � .
�� r►��t`.,�j�'-1��'��i�_�`',\►',; i'ia`\\, ' + . ' j ' `
� `���'�w•..... _ �. i ;
. r ��;.'��"�=.a��
I r/ � � `���'��:I'-�' ���►� ' � •
� ��► �� , � ,� i • r
�� ��`I�; .�j%►„ , , ', : � , , 4 �: ,, .
/��- , � ,�,'``'� •rl,l 'i, � , , , ;
��. �-• ���.�., , � ��,,%`:�s,�/!1.►, �' �� . , Fj,��.; . .
�4, �' � Z ¢. ���,� �"������,"//��� '? . ! �} � t ��.
� ��. yi. �,� ��
� �. � "' _ =%,' � '" i e � �' � i.'��.
►i'`. .': ,: ,,1;
,��.r.""'"�""'" . � .. . . � .. '�, � ,� •.�, s..i
I��"'.�����,`! . . .. _.�._ ._
�••''- � �%���,.\\ '• � '
�� ' S �:a,.
���� � � �C� ���
�} ��L `a
'"_���`_�D�\ i `��,.
N `���%� , �► '�;,..�/►� �''I �� .
'r„1,.��'��►�►''� /, , �..
,.--;,'�= `'f:"- �j'..�'/ j ;,� , :
''--,."'�'�--"��I ��'' .i-'/'.i,
� r��+��e ��'� '' �-`i���. � .
'�''1►-�. �Ir �'��� /y ��. . ,• � :
„ � I
►.' �!�..-,,; -"�..: _....-�%,.�.�-; ,.. � ,;
M/�'.- ---- ----- . � ...- �:..
�/",.i�.►T+�"'--_-= --._. _ .
��.�I%�%i �'' ``' ,
�� .�i-�--�.,--'� 'ri��' �" t : � �
��//I..r:ii r� /�-/ ' :•-� �, �
��'%% -/' i' - � ,,
%//__�' 'i" :�„-�� � ✓ � � \
II//! � •
�i' _ s i' ..- "�' r : .i. . • \
jri' � � , o . `:.
/ �� ' • ��/ � , h ..
� / .
r � % /� ��, /yf � � " /'I< S � , \ � �,
/ //
,�n, '� �.i /' � /� � . .� ' i . . 7 ' `•
� j �,: i , / n�,; sC . . , . � ��� � .. � 5 . �\
� / . '. � d�/..: �/ i � (� � �• -_ .. � i� �' �.
./ >� - 'r .�/ � / 1 � 1 - ..�- _\ '.� ����.
� �./��/i. �/.i/.% ��.��J%�/''Ii�r�..�l,\\,1 . .: � �� � `��� yt•, \�.
�1'etropolitan Airports Commission
' �� .� � :� �. . � �� :, . �, . , �_ , . �
.. � � ', . , � . . �,
I .� ,, ���,
�, . , . . �.�, . ,; � ' or� •c 1'
� �� '� :� �.
Page 2 � Aviatia�n Noise & Satellite Programs
� t,
t
�
�-:
��
f �
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airpor°t
February 1996
3607 ... Toial llir ancl 11R. Carrier Jet I�epaa-tures
41 .e. Carrier Jet Departures 1 1%)
North of Proposed. 095° (M) Corriclor Pol�cy �oundary
�, LEFT
0
�
�
�
�
-6
41 TR�ACKS CROSSED P-GATE
COUNT=38 (92.7�) RIGHT COUNT=3 (7.3�)
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) �
�
Aviatio�n Noise & Satellite Programs Page 3
�ti4rtmpolitan Airports Comm.ission � ��
i
�outilerm �oundary Corridor Gate lPenetration Anal�sis `
_
1Vlinneapolis - St. I'aul International t�irport �
February �996
10.5% (380) Carrier Jet I)epartures
5outh of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer)
Page 4 Aviatio�n Noise & Satellite Programs
w Q
� a
� �
F— r''
�
J
�t
O
O
O
N
O
d
Q
-61
Metropolitan Airports Commission
,. 11 P. , � ,� . �,�
•1 ,,, i��
360� ..e Tota� 11L and 11R Carriea- �et l�epartua�es
380 0.. Cara°ier Jet Departures 10.5%)
South of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer)
380 TRACKS CROSSEO P-GATE
LEFT COUNT=379 (99.7�) RIG'HT COUNT=1 (0.3�)
� ;
; ?
; � ; ;
;
, , , , ,
, , , ,
,- , . , ; ,
����������������_j�����•����..������.1������_����������J������������������L�����������������L����������������
•
. � ;
� ' �
1 � �
• �; ; � � �
• � • �
. �
•• 1
. �N � ��� i i . ! � ... �
� � i
----------'-~ 1• -- �----o -•---�-----------------�-'-------------- � -------------- �
l� �� � � _J_�' 'L"'_'_"""_"'
i � • � � � ;
I O �
:�r e�;.s . • -� , ' ; ; .
a,� .
. ;
.
• , ;
'�'�„�.,� � ; . :
•; � . ; . ;
,
. Ai '�;+_� •
� � �
� �
"""""' ».'a'4M-'"_'i""!""""""i"""""'__ r'""'_"'"
""J '"_""'i_"""'__""'_"'
�~� •• ♦ • ! 1 . . , .
�j�1i 1 O � •
e °~ � °� ' -
• �• f e • �
��ai • e � • 1 ; �
� • t t �
t � �
y� ; � �
M � i �
� �
� �
' i � i
� � � � �
-------------� -�-------'----''---'+----------'------�'---------'---'--'�--°--------------�---'-------------
� � �
�
i i � ,
� � �
�
•� � � i
� i i i
t
, i
� � i i
i i t �
�
� � � �
� � , � ' �
i i i i
i �
� �
i
j i � �
1 �
1 � �
' i ,
� . i I
1 � I � .
Ii
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft)
Aviation Noise Fc Satellite Programs Page 5
Metr�p��litan Airports Commission ' ��
. �1�
� �
5outhern �oundary Corridor G:ate Penetration �nalysis
_ _ _ _.
li�Iin�eapolis - ��o Paul International A.irport �
. 1 . "' �
le9% (67) Carrier Jet Dep�rtures 5° South of Corridor
(5° South of 29L, I.ocalizer)
Page 6 � Aviatioai Noise & Satellite Programs
�
, i , Metropolitan Airports Commission
1Vl�nneapol'is - St. Paul International Airport
' February 1996
i
�
�;
�
�
C
3607... Total 11L and 11R. Carrier Jet Depaa-tures
67 .oe Carrier Jet Departures l. %)
5° South of Corridor (5° South of 29L Localizer)
67 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
LEFT COUNT=66 (98.5�) RIGHT COUNT=1 (1.5�)
�
�
�
�
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft
�
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs page �
. f. �. f�.A �
\. ��
,
/
7`
•
�
�
�
�
� �
7�
Y;.�
;:�
�::;:�::,,0
������`��:``'�
:>.;:::c�
� ��
�
.�
0
0
,--
8
:
a
<r
�
� �
•�
�
�
� �
�
�
� '
� � ��
� ':� ,:;::
�
�
! .,�i//// j,
` � j
-.,,,
.�i /
\��
�
O ' O O
O 00 �O
�
�
o:
:�
�
�
0
�
:
��
i,�
�.�
�
O 00 �O
.—+
�
.
. .
�
...
� �
� II
.
��
.
�
.
.
..
,.
�
,
�
-� : �v. :.�;;�
��:�SN
�,��:,�;..�:.
, 3..,
a f f�,.,f�� ..Y
.. f.•;J.: V.'.4"'�'"`Y..
� <�::NA'�?�;.w.
:b�+`SSff�iY�".:
�il �r � ��
:��:�.Y .fry,`�,`S;Cy'yis..
dC �Y•' .. .,,K,�.�r
'::d'^Y'�4.�.
. _` ' __.._. _ . '
�
�
. .. ___. ....:�-..,......,�.�.�.:.�:.�: ::.::.::� :,.;�.,.;;,...:.- •::..�::;:. ..���L
.: n:{.:^
4+
�
�
i: }}:?4:"F .
�
�
1�
4 � ....n . ..............: •.
f::;<: �
( �
�
"��ii�rms��itr���������"'������r���trm��c��-�,i�'t"teQ��,€��i�������en�t����`s'
, MARCH 1996
r .�
ISSUE 27
. �; , `
���:;
�u� H�; �
� II I " i� i'_i
�r_4; -
' f/fTH AUCT/ON CONDflLTED MARCH f4, 1996. TO D�ITf
JVEARLY.f800,OqD NAS B�I/ RElVRNEO TO THE PIPQ/ELT.
SEESI'ORY�ELOW.
�"O'��5�0�'�'B'��'1'�'��t���:�,�o'8�0�'���'�'�'�O'0,�,�'"��"'t'„t'0������A�
FIFTH AUCTION CONDUGTED
MAC, WDSCO, and Kloster Indnsfial Auctioneers
conducted the fifth pnblic suction on Thursday,
14larch 14, 1996, at 1:30. Out of thiriy (30) homes
available for suction, all thirty (30) were sold.
Houses and detached garages were sold as one unit,
the same as the previous auctions. The highest bid
for a home was $14,250, with the lowesk bid being
$200. The highest bid was significantly lower than
expected, due to the vandalism that occurred in the
projeck
Thera will be increased activity in the area witi�
house movers beginning preparation for a J�ly �12,
1996 deadline to move the purchased houses and
garages. .
As with each 'auction to date, the 5191,000.00
generated from the fifl�h auction will go back into
the funding for the Part 150 Land Acquisition and
ReIacation Program. This creates additional funds
for the buyout area, w}iile reducing property
management feas and demolition costs. The next
public auction will be scheduled for the summer of
1996.
VANDALISM DECREASES
There is some good news regazding the issue of
vandalism. Thanks to the neighborhood
involvement, two juveniles from the area have been
arrested on numerous counts of vandalism. MAC
and WDSCO would tike to thank all remaining
homeowners aad tenants for their actions which led
to these arrests. Vandalism has sharply decreased
since the arrests; however, as this issue of the
Buyout Update was being prepared, a new report of
broken windows was just received.
Your help is still needed to monitor the vandatism
situatioa within the neighborhood if you see or
hear anything,'please do not hesitate to cail 911.
The City of Richfietd will keep the increased
number of patrols in die area Keep in mind,
'vandalism within this project is considered a federal
offense and any vandal(s) caught witl be prosecuted
to the full eactent of the law. Conviction on the
chazge of vandalism may result in substantial fines
to reimburse MAC for the cost of repairing
, damages. ,
DEMOLITION UPDATE
The first demoution contract is near completian. To
date, 9? houses and ' 4 garages have been
demolished Demolition of all buildings occurred
over the winter period Due to the snow and cotd
weather, such items as sidewalks, driveways and
fences were not all removed. There is still some
site work to be done. However, all buildin�
demolition, under the curcent contract, wili be
completed as of the date of this newsletter.
Beginning in April, the contractor wil! remove all
remaining materials, and clean up the sites. The
demolition contractor wiil also fiaish final grading
and topsoiling atl sites and make reasonable efforts
to prevent o�osion. 'The final step wil! be to seed
the sites so that grass is in place for the summer
sesson. This wili end the contract with the first
demolition contractor.
It will be necessary to go through the bidding
process again for future demolition work. Currentty,
MAC and WDSCO are in the process of preparing
plans and specifications for additional demolition
work. The demolition will last through the summer
and into the fall.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT iTPDATE
Dumpster Hours:
The April dtimpster availability dates aze Sahuday,
April 6, 1996, aad Saturday, April 20, 1996. The
hours for the dum�ster site, which are 9:00 am. to
3:00 p.m., will remain the same through the first
mottths of spring. These hours may be adjusted in
the future summer months depending on usage and
demand for the dumpster.
The Part 150 Buyout Update .is a newsietter by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and W.D.
Schoc$ �Cpmpany, Inc., containing information on ihe MSP Land Acquisition and Relocation
Projects.
If you stilt have items to be disposed of in the
dumpster once you are rea�y to vacato your home,
please norify WDSCO'a properiy mansgement
supecvisor prioi , w your final watk through
inspection. You can store the items m be disposed
of in your garage, and oomo back to discard all tha
items in tha dumpster tho next availablo Sahuday�
during the scheduled dumpster hours. Please do not
place garbage or unwanted items at the dumpster
site during unscheduled hours.
PHASE III: ACQULSiTION AND
RELOCATION
Offer Undate•
As of March 18, 1996, the offer process for those
homeowners in Phase III is 99'/o complete. Sixty-six
(66) offer meetings have baeu he�d, with �if�y-nine
(59) homeowners accepting their offers. Due to tha
near completion of the Phase IQ offer process, tlus
March issue of the Buyout Updste will be the last
issue to report the Pfiase III acquisition offer status.
�lcnnisiiion Closin� Undste:
As of March 18, 1996, thore has been a total of
Sfly-Sve (SS) acquisidon �losings conducted for
those homeowners in Pha4e III. The acquisifion
closiag process for this Phase is 82% compteted.
Relocation Closing Uadatte:
As of this March issue of the Buyout Update, thirty-
four (34) Phase IQ homeowners have closed on ttieir
relocation homes. The Phase III relocsdon closing
process is now S1% comploted. As of March 18,
1996, twoaty-sevat (2� Phasa III properties have
bean vacated. T6a Phase III vacating process is
now 40'/o completed. `
►r
The New Ford Town/Rich Acres Citi�eas Advisory
Committee wrote a letter to the legislators in
Washington D.C. to encourage them to con6nue
funding for the project. The letter was sent oa
W. D. SCHOCR COI+�ANY, INC .
� 5844 28TH AV'ENUE SOUTH
M��t�EAPOLIS. MN 55417
(612)724-8898 .
(800)260-7062
behalf of the Richfieid families still livin� in the
NF`T/RA neighbochoods. This letter stated that
approximately 280 eesidences have been acquired by
the prugram, whilo nearty 65 families stitl wait,
unfunded.
The letter may assist in getting funds released to '
start the next phase of the buyout. , WDSCO will �
advise the naxt group of homeowners as soon as
additional funds aze available.
BUYOUT FEEDBACK
Q. Will WDSGO pay for the expense to re-
connect all my u'tilities once I move iato my
new home?
A. If a flomeowner chose the actual moving
expensa payment and had a moving
company perForm the actual move. there are
certain one-time �ctility' company re-
connection fees that may be reimbursable.
These are the one-time fees charged for new
� service connection. Please note these fees
must be non-refundable. The homeowner
mast pay for these fees end then forwerd
copies af thair paid utility bills to . their
WDSCO consultant for reimbursemen� Gas,
electric, telephone and cable are the most
common companies to charge one-time fees.
If a homeowner must incur specisl charges
� due to re-connectioa of a stove, dryer or
cable. pleaae discnss these fees wit6 yoar
eonanitant fie�st cegsrding poasibie('
reimibarscment � Please be aware that if the\.
eacpensa is higher tt►an $100.00, your
consultant will need to obtain tvw bids prior
to t�ia work being completed. If a
homeowner chose the Sxed moving expense
and conducted the move themselves, atl one-
time re-connection fees that need to be paid
to the utitity companies will be paid by the �
homeowner from the lump sum moving
ercpense payment they received to conduct
the move.
��,✓—'; : x
l�_ *n► f�� _:':..'• K
� �f'��yV�T� .K
=r,�. o•?w�.,- oJ�.���fA�'���
� ��� r :{
K c < +� � .�'
L `� ' � 2 2 ��
� .�..��" � <
r.e.� � ~ �
MN 3334�3) �--
Tom Lawe11 •
1101 Victoria Curve '
- Mendota Hghts, I�i 55118
�'
m
.. ' :}. . `:
NEV��':FORD T4'PVN/RI�� ACIZ.ES I�UYOITT
� ,. : . � i']�ASE I� � (1PEI� I�COUSE
�., . ..
�o� Homeowners and Tenants in New Ford Town and Rich Acres
What: Informational Open House �
�Y� To review the Acquisition and Relocation Process
Where: I2ichfield �City Hall, Council's Charnbers
Wlien: Thursday, April 11, 1996 from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
WDSCO will be available to discuss schedules and the acquisition/relocation
process, as well as answer questions from homeowners and tenants. The City of
Richfield will provide information and material regarding the Rediscover Richfield
program. Representatives from the Metropolitan Airports Commission, W. D.
Schock Company and the City of Richfietd will be available. Cookies and punch
will be served.
. .. i ..iii. .�t: . .. . , i� � ii. . .. . . i . ...
0
�
2. � ii;: . • .
5� 5 S
Z
J 5 . . <�� .. . . . . ' ' ' . , �i
,. . . . ... . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . .
The legisiation that estabiished the Dual Track Airport Pianning Pracess requires that the MAC
adopt a Long Term Comprehensive Pian for Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport that
satisfies air transportation needs for a 20 year period (to the year 2010, based on starting the
planning process in 1989-1990). The legislation also requires that the MAC adopt a concept plan
for the airport for an additional ten years (for a total time period of 30 years, or to 2020). There
is a further requirement that the plans be updated at least every five years, and amended as
necessary to include "...changes in trends and conditions, facilities requirements, and
development pians and schedules." The plan is intended to be fluid and provide a flexible
blueprint for future airpo�t development� when a need and financing for facilities are clearly
defined. It is not a commitment to build facilities, instead, it is a dynamic document which can
be adapted and amended to meet future needs.
The focus of much of the planning process has been the�2020 conceptual pian. Significant effort
has, however, aiso been given _ to the 2010 development. plan, since that is the more cost
effective� concrete and definitive proposal. The 2010 r�eeds can be met by phased development
of the existing Lindbergh Terminai Compiex, incrementally adding facilities as they are required.
Underlying this approach are three fundamentai concepts: 1) to maximize use of the Lindbergh
Terminai area, 2) to develop facilities in an incremental manner based on demonstrated need,
and 3) to provide high quality passenger-handling facilities� in the most cost-effective manner.
Development phasing is dependent upo� demand. The potentiai locatians for additional gates are
at the end of the Gold Concourse and at the end of the Green Concourse. Under either of these
scenarios, the Post Office and the auto rentai service sites wouid be impacted by maving the
regional airline apron into area currently occupied by these faci(ities. Up to an additionai 24 gates
could be added by further extensions of the Green Concourse and Gold Concourse. �
MAC and NWA agree that the 2010 development needs can be met by an incrementai expansion
program of the �indbergh Terminal (Northwest's Concept 6A), and needs.through 2020 may be
met by Concept 6A. Some level of continued development will be necessary in the Terminai
Buiiding to accommodate increased passenger leveis, and improvements will need to be made
to the Red and Biue Concourses to accommodate increased leveis of passenger activity. The
MAC must continue to invest in the airport inftastructure to maintain a high quality facility.
Development beyond 2010 is less certain due to the inherent problems in forecasting activity that
far into the future� particulariy in an industry as dynamic as aviation. Depending on the rafe of
growth in passenger activity, the 2010 pian couid provide adequate capacity through 2020. MAC
and NWA agree, however, that a 2020 pian showing the passibility of a new terminal on the west
side of the airport, with the existing �indbergh Terminai camplex reconfigured into linear gate
concourses (Concept 6) will be used as the basis for the analysis in the Oual Track Environmental
impact Statement� since it shows the maximum impact of terminal development at MSP and wiil
ailow the development of the North•South Runway and 2010 terminal plan to go forward without
� a new EIS process. '
�
.
,
To the extent that the Lindbergh Terminai complex can continue to meet passenger needs after
`' 2010, it should be fully developed and therefare, it wouid not be necessary to proceed witt�
development of a west terminal. if, however, a new terminal is justified at some point in the future,
completion af the planning, airspace and environmental reviews at this time wouid ailow
development to proceed based on the concuRence by ali parties that it was necessary.
As indicated above, there is a requirement that the Long Term Comprehensive Plan for the airport
be reviewed at least every five years. This document must be dynamic and flexible, it must adapt
to the changing industry. These reviews provide the opportunity to continuousiy monitor trends
in the industry and the level of activity at the airport, and to make adjustments in the plan as
required.
( j
f �i
NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY AIRPORT �ELATIONS COALITION
MEETING MINUTES
February 20, 1996
The Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coa1ition meeting
was called to order by Sunfish Lake representative Glenda Sp iotta
at 7:40 a.m. in the Fireside Room at St. Anne's Episcopal Church
in Sunfish Lake. The following members were present: Eagan, Jon
Hohenstein; Inver Grove Heights, Steve Hughes and Will Eginton;
Sunfish Lake Frank Tiffany and Glenda Spiotta.
AGENDA
The printed Agenda was approved on a motion made by Jon
Hohenstein, seconded by Frank Tiffany.'
MINUTES
On a motian by Jon Hohenstein, seconded by Frank Tiffany,
the Minutes of December 19, 1996 were approved.
- The January 18, 1996 Minutes were deferred until the March,
1996 NDCARC meeting.
CITY UPDATES/DISCU$SION OF DUAL TRACK ETS
The Eagan and Inver Grove Heights representatives reported on
their respective positions to tower order language changes. The
Eagean Airport Relations Commission recommended to the Eagan City
Council to test the language change for negative consequences
with evaluation over time. Inver Grove Heights requested
clarifications to the tower order for an "ASAP" departure turns
af ter the three mile limit, though MAC claims this is being
allowed now. The abjective is to allow for initiation of turns
while in the corridor. Jon Nohenstein indicated that a 6 months
to one year evaluation timeframe would allow for a correlation o�
flight departure turns based on the AMONS data and would develop
baseline data.
There was discussion of the objective to have aircraft attain
altitude as soon as practicable and whether Close-In Procedures
could be used with a change to 1500 feet altitude instead of 800
feet. Some factars involved in these scenarios were discussed.
Jon Hohenstein suggested that the Close-In Departures procedure
may be best so recammended trying to better evaluate its effects
as the Close-In procedure tracks higher and may be closer to the
NDCARC goal of getting the aircraft higher and sooner. It was a
recommendation for MASAC to focus discussion on the procedure and
�� evaluate over a certain time period.
.
NDCARC Minutes: February 20, 1996
Page 2
Jon Hahenstein summarized the City of Richfield's position to the
4/22 Extension. He pointed aut that the EIS does not address
increase traffic as well as a traffic shift. He commented that a
survey with 60 Ldn will be conducted by the mediation group far
input into the decision. February 22, 1996 is the final date for
submission of EIS comments.
Inver Grove Heights representatives reported their city had
_. cantacted their State Representatives by letter to emphasis more
equitable distribution of airpart noise and to recognize that
noise is an actual cost issue with the current and future airport
location. It was a consensus that all costs were not included in
the EIS and shauld be openly discussed before any decision is
made.
Jon Hohenstien recommended the member cities support the land
banking concept if the airpart remains at its current location.
T'here was general discussion of broad issues regarding airpart
relocation, traffic prajection/capacity evaluations, remote
runway, hub use/destination, maintenance facility location, NW �.
non-commitment to the study process.
NTGHTTIME NOISE/SHOULDER HOURS
Tt was reported that the MASAC Operations Committee is receiving
updates on Nighttime Noise/Shoulder hours.
FUTURE MEETINGS
Agenda topic: to prepare for MASAC recommendation re: �
departures profiles.
The foilowing meeting scheduled was confirmed:�
a. March 19, 1996 at Inver Grove Neights
b. April 16, 1996 at Eagan
�.� ��.�� Zi � �<<��, ,�e��4�•F-�. f;-�<<�1(3
Jon Hohenstein w�ll send Glenda Spiotta an� recent mailing list
changes.
ADJOURNMENT
'The Northern Dakota Cities Airport Relations Coalition was
adjourned at 9:00 a.m.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
�E Alr l.J 1�'g � �� �
TO: MASAC Members
F�.20M: Robert Johnson, Chairman
SUBJECT: City of Sunfish Lake Request for Full Membership
DAT'E: March 25,1996
The MASAC Executive Committee reviewed a request from the City of Sunfish Lake for full
voti.ng membership status on the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC). In
reviewing attendance recards, the Executive Committee determined that Sunfish Lake has more
than met the requirements for attendance at 12 consecutive MASAC meetings, having started.
their associate member status as long ago as July 1992. Addidonally, SunSsh Lake meets the
eligibility requirement of the MASAC By-Laws that a city lie within 5 miles of the airport.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Executive Committee 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 REPRESIIJTA'ITVES and the PiJBLIC REPRESENTATNES shall at �
all times be equal in number."
In reviewing the attendance records for the last four complete years, the following 1VIASAC User
and Public Representative performance is noted in the attached table. If you have any questi.ons
please contact myself or John Foggia, MASAC Technical Advisor.
.-------- – — –
�
After a fourth runway is bullt along the west side of the current ateport, the only remalntng area to expand wo Id req ire demolishingster
historic 19th century military housing at Fort Snelling. A 74? approaches for landing on a runway parallel to where a future flfth run-
way would be built This photo was taken with a telephoto lens, which makes ob jects appear closer together than they actuaily are.
By Laurie Blake
Star Tribune Staff Writer
As the proposal to expand the Twin
Cities airport advances toward state
approval, several cities bordering the air-
�eld fear a hidden agenda: possible
future construction of a new runway on
the north side of the airport.
A new northern runway vuould run
parallel to the existing main runways
and would point at Minneapolis and
Mendota Heights. It would biing more
jet noise to neighborhoods not now
under flight paths. And construction of
the runway would take out homes in
south Minneapolis and historic build-
ings at Fort Snelling.
"It would devastate the city of Men-
dota Heights," said Mendota Heights '
long-ie�m lan
�
interim administrator Kevin Batchelder.
"Virtually everybody agrees that a
northern parallel runway would be dev-
astating to Minneapolis," said Min-
neapolis City Council Member Dennis
Schulstad.
To be clear, there aze no official plans
to build what would be a fifth runway at
�he Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport. The Metropolitan Council and
the Metropolitan Airports Commission
have said specifically that expansion
plans through 2020 do not include the
runway. Their plans, which have yet to
be approved by the Legislature, call only
for the construction of a runway on the
west side of the airport, running north
and south along Cedar Av.
But NorthwestAirlines has circulated
'a brochure that shows the northem oar-
allel runway in its development plan for
the airport be'yond 2020.
"That's what makes it so scary," said
Jan Del Calzo, a former airports commis-
sioner and a south Minneapolis anti-
noise activist. "To have Northwest put it
on their plan, you kind of go, Uh-Oh."
Northwest, wHich provides 80 per-
cent of the air service to the Twin Cities,
wielded enormous influence against
construction of a new airport during the
debate about whether to build a new
facility in Dakota County or expand the
one.
The airline threatened.to reduce ser-
vice and move as many as.10,000 jobs
out of the state rather than rebuild main-
tenance facilities at a new airport.
Turn tn 61RPART na R7
Star Trmune PhoWs by DavW Brevjstdr:
�` �lane iands 6ehfnd two of tha nine rematning oNfcers' quarters at the west end of Taylor Av. Conetructlon of a north parailel runway would require'the,.;
� don of ail ntne of tha 19th�century buitdings.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................:.. � :: •:
RUNWAY.from B1
Cities, fear hidden agenda
in ex�anding current air�ort
The concern in ivlinneapolis, Eagan, likewise, feazs more
Mendota Heights and Eagan is traffic over residentia! azeas.
ihat the airline could play the Minneapolis wonld lose 318
same cards in the future if more homes and a pazk.
runway capaciry is needed to ac- The homes would be cleazed in
commodate air traffic growth: the Wenonah neIghborhood to
Knowing the airline's position, create a safery zone required by
they see a northern pazallel run- the Federal AviaiIon Administra-
�vay as the hidden agenda behind tIon at the end of the new runway.
the current expan'sion plans. And Although city offcials suspect
they say the sociai and physical more homes wouid be taken, state
costs of adding that iifth runway law exempts the creation of state
should have been factored into the safety zones beyond federa! zones
decision about whether to buUd a in housing areas, according to
new airport in Dakota Counry or Nigel Finney, deputy executive
expand at the current site. director of plannIng for the MAC.
OfAclals of ali three cities aze But the southern tIp of Bossen
convInced that construction of a Fteld would fall In the safety zone.
newnorth-southrunwaywouldso The 39-acre pazk has softball
deepen the invesvnent in the cur- fields, a rwining track, a chtldren's
rent aIrport that St would force wading pooi, piayground equip-
continued expansIon — with the ment and a basketball court.
noise and property destruction If the houses and park were
that would bring — instead of �taken for airport eacpansion, Frank
6uiiding a new airport elsewhere. Ario, a longtime south Minneapo-
Further evidence supporting lis anti-noise activist predicts:
this scenarIo, they say, is the fact
that there is no move to preserve
tho-^alcota County site selected
fi �w airpott.
a reality of the situatton is
that if we contInue to Invest here
and we don't preserve opUons
anywhere else, It's goIng to make it
harder to move, said Jon Ho-
henstein, assistant to the city ad-
ministrator of Eagan. "The more
we put our eggs in this basket the
greater the possibUIty that a notth
parallel is the °next thing that
would happen."
T� the runway path
Construction of a northem paz-
allei runway would mean the
clearing of some homes in south
NlinneapolIs and addiUonal noise
over aU ttuee communities.
"If they put, a third northern
runway in It would point right at
ttie heazt of residential Mendota
T-Ie ghts anii areas that have•never
ex�,erienced air noise," Batchelder
said.
� a•
"People wIll move away. They're
going to evacuate. For all Intents
and , purposes, MinneapolIs
becomes another Detroit, another
South Side Chicago and you have
destroyed literally a very key part
of the city."
Nistoric buildings lost
Construction of a north pazallel
runway also wouid cut into the
state park and historic buildings at'
Fort Snelling, requiring de-
struction of nine 19th century of-
Hcers' guarters and tluee enlisted
meri's barracks in the Fort Snelling
National Historic Landmark Dis-
trict
A nine-hole golf course at the
fort would be in the runway's
path. The golf course was buili
before World War I.
Very annoying Jet noise leveis
would eutend over portions of the
state park where there aze hiking
traiis, a canoe landing, swunming
and picnic facilides.
So severe aze these effects, that
the most recent consultant's ad-
vice to the airports commission
about the possibility of buIIding a
third paralie! is that while there
would 6e room, its constructIon
would be probiematic. • ���
That has not, however, sropped� �
the concern and sgeculation
about the future of the runway.
"I think that there is a hiddeir:
agenda there and they will ueat•.
the third pazallel as aimost neces-;
sary once there has been a dect-: .
sion made to expand the aIrpor,�.'� ;;
where it currently is," said Eagari`"
Mayor Tom Egan. ;,� ,; ;. .
To prevent its construcUo�:,,
�&om becoming an automaHc sfep,. �
Egan is trying to persuade state,
legislators, either to prohib[t .Its
construction or to require'thalf„
future consideration be given• ta ;
buildIng a new airport before a; •
north parallel is built. ,
Responding to the coricerri '
about a northern parallel, pro-
posed legislation moving through
the Capitol requires the airports
commission to get legislative per-
mission before building a north-
ern pazallel runivay.
The same proposed legislaUon
requires the commission to report
each yeaz on the number of IIights
and passengers at the airport and
on the length of delays. The pur-
pose to make clear any mounting:
need for an additional runway.
.. - r
�--h!+5rr�-.r—._. .
�c.:. ..
�
:�,t:'::
J
\
AGENDA
t� � REGULAR MEETING
� � �GAN AIRPOR� R�LATiONS COMMISSION
EAGAN, MIrfNESOTA
' �
i
CITY COUNCIL CI3AlVIBERS
EAGAN CITY I3ALL
April 10, 1996
7:00 I'eM.
} • " rr ^
`^+�.8.� � � ; r` .'
APR p � ��96
�
�� v��_ _�� �,., ���
��
I. ROLL' �I.L AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MI1�TU7['aS
III. VISITO�tS TO BE gIF.ARD
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual T�ack Airport Planning Prncess I�gislation
v. x�w �usarrEss
VI. CITHER BUSINESS
VII. WOIi;KSHOP REPORT
VIII. STA�'� R�PORT
� . A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
B. Runway 4/22 Extension
C. MA.SAC Meeting of March 26
D. Northern Dakota County A.irport Relations Coalition
IX. INFORMATIVE
X. FUTUItE AGENDA
XI. NEX'� COMMISSION MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 14
NEXT COMMISSION WORKSHOP - 7:00 p.m. Thursday, A,pril 17
NEXT 1V�ASAC MEETING - 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Apri123
XII. ADJOLTKt1fMENT
Auxilrary aids for persorrs with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96
hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is receivec� the City of Eagan will attempt to provide
such aid
�
�
�n
� 1 1 1 � .1 :
Airport 1Zela,tions Commissioners
�
Kevin Batchelder, Interim City Admini t�tor
Subject: Discuss Mendota Heights Air Noise Plan of Action
DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed the Air Noise Plan of Action at its February meeting,
including the elements of the Action Plan. The six Action Plan elements are:
l. Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
2. I3eighten Awareness of MH Air Noise Concerns
3. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
4. Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft Fleet
5. Noise Reduction Through Litigation
6. Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insula.tion
The Commission was able to review the first three elements including a discussion of
what had been accomplished and what remained as goals and objectives. The Commission did
not complete its discussion of elements #4-6, as listed above. In the interim since the
February meeting, the Legislature has acted on the Dua1 Track decision which will impact
some of the remaini.ng topics.
The Commission should finish its review of the Air Noise Plan of Action, so that a
revised draft may be produced for final review. Please refer to the February 14, 1996 minutes
for details of the discussion on the elements of the Action Plan.
Continue the discussion of the Air Noise Plan of Action, and provide staff with
direction for preparing the revised draft Au� Noise Plan of Action.
,
. - � . , � , �
y ' ' '• ' � � � ' � • ' ` - �` . - �
� i � �
•. �,. "• � .. � .�, ' .. � ,�. � : � ,•. , � •. '..
�' . •' � ' � � .. � • :: � �. ' : �
: a . '�.� • �' / �. � �� � .. '�
. �� , � ' � � � ' � � • `� � , ' ' � f . � �' .`,
•
� I ,.� ; i '', � �' �f •.� � ;� �:•' �: '� ♦. ��
� '� � � ' � �: '�� � ..• i � '�' • �• • � : �. � .�::
•. � � � ��� � � .: � ' � �� �.� � �. • � � �
� ":. , . .. ., • : �. ,, ' •: �'
c '
• �. � . �� ' � . ��� �� �. �I
t, r
• r, •,
I .:� �� '�� • ��' • �
•
• � • • • - , � � �
� � - � � � �' � . ` •
. � ,� � - - �' . . " ! •' -
• • � . ; � � � f i� , � ,
�.
. � • • � • . r ,
- - -' - -�: : . . ' �_ �_ `., _�. . _ .�. . - -�- - - -�- - -�- ! . _ -
'• . -• R-�:. ' • -•
'• � '-. - � � . . ',• -
• .•• ., � • �.' • ..
• •
� ' �. • � � • �, . �
.
� • . ' • � � � • ' . • � •
��. �.
;
� �_
{..___.- -. ..
�: .
, F..
� - .
�. - �
=� -�- i�r o M: DOT/�►, ii�i��iT
,.:� _
. s
-��: .. -
t.. AI T
N� O 1
SE
� � .
PLAN OF �
� ACTION
_: �.
�
�
;��
s<;
�' �
. . ;� . � � ; � . �
� �_ � � � f �,
A) Action Pla.�i. ]f3evelopment Process
,
B) L,ist of Possible Topics oi Considerat�on
G) Actiom Plan Ele�ents: •
. �-� �., � � �� �� -� .,-, � . -� -�
. ��.r -�r-� .�•� r •� ' ir ,�-• ,,-�
, � _� � � � � �� .o�� , . �� .
� ,�•
- b) Adoption of "Close-In" vs., "Distant" 'Takeof�
I'rocedures to Red.uce I�Toise Caeneration Over
Mendota Heights
c) Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff
Regulations to Reduce Noise Generation C;ver
Mendota Heights �
.3
;
,
:
� ' . � ' � , ' � '
. � �. 1 11 11' ". 1 1 ' i
•'i � � � , t- � ��� . • � • •
' �r - �
r • � _ . 1 1' / .' � .
. � , 1 • 11.N' .-,. �,
' wii � � ,1 1 • l ' � � , " , . '
1'
� ' �. 1 � 'i� ' � N • 1; �, • � � - -�
.
'1 � 11.�I�I:
' ! � �' 1 � 11 ' 1 � ' � - i - i � i _ "
��� .1
� �� •f111 •�
� �1• "ii 11 •11,;� '�'i �
.�
� �_ ",1, • 1 i �') f 1, 1 �' 1 �. .
�
/ .
� �, � -,- �,� , � ,'' " , - - � �
a) Assure Conversion by F�deral Deadline of Year
2000
r�=.
�
� , ��.�, � ,:
.-- -�-:�- � -,-- ----�--� ,- -- � �- , �-
� . ..� �� � � •� •, ��
_
. r- - �� �- -. , . . -•, �, .�,. �
- �, • � , � � N �, �.
� � • �•. •i i 1 • •1 • ii� 1 .A�1
� � � , ,��� � � 11 '1 .��i' 1
� � � � _ � �, � � . 1 �
Page 4� �
� � •' � � ! ' � ' . ;
� �; � � � ') '` � '� � � � � � � � '
} -: * Identify Focus Issue
►;
� � * Identify Specific Goal �
�
�
* I,ist '9Vhat Ne�rds To ]Be I�on�e - Ac�.on Steps
(:� . ,
�., * Identify Who Wi11 'W�ork C�Dn Each Step
� �
* Dete ° e When Each Step Is To Be Do�e
��
r�
�;
�
:�
_�
� '.
L-.�r
r7
�
�
i
i
f
�
ny
li:
�
� ' . � � ' � ,
• � "� • 1 1 � '• 1 •1 '1 . �'� � • ''�
•, 1!1 � "'11 ' i' . •:i • • i U , � - � i . � " • � : � - �, - v
� � � � ir .��• . _ •i . • � .�•
. .��tion Steps:
�
�
�� 1. Review previous MAC
,�- - representations on issue
„
:._� � Wl�l. Cl. �:OU11C11
�;� � . • � -� �•
��. - .� -� �.� �� .�-�
,,-. � . ., �
,�� r r ��� �, , , ��. �,
�
`'"�J
� ,
����-..._. )
W�10
Staff/ARC
�'�'�� �• ��� �•� - �� - . � ' �
��� ��, �, . �,�..i �; .� • ,N 1•
• � � Il'� ' 11' / . � � i • 1' ,� • '�
[` � it % 0 �r"� J G..., �
� `
'S" 4'"U vv� � 'r-r' c : �" %-c-- �^�.t;... `l
�- , ••,
��1y 1994 C��
. , • � � '
0
0
Issue:
; : Goal:
. � _ . �` � 1' ' �
Noise Reduction �hxough Modified. Takeoff Proced.ures
Adoption of "Close-In°' vs. °'I�istant" Takeoff Procedures
to Red.uce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights
�� Action Steps:
�:�.
�-�
: 1. Review FAA I�equiremlents . Staff/ARC June 16, 1994
Wl�l. (;1�T C;Otl,i].C11
('
� 2. Continue Pa�ticipation on St��ff/Coun.cil On '
going
. MASAC Operations Committee
�a
� which is currently reviewing issue . -
4.
5•
�,;,
�'� 6.
, . ��- , �:� ���r�,
-�� � . .
. . .�� - •r�i�-��. ��
,� ,., '. .�� �•` .��' ' � ����-t
� � �
� r
' '' .� �: .i� � ����-�
-�� - ♦��i�-i�. �� � .
MAC recommends to FAA
procedure be iested
. ..
� ��..�
��1'�--�-99'�'�
�r.s`�� c:.,- . � , � t,.?. � w , ..,ss �.•'�t 4'�'-��-.;,'� ^
..�U r`. �"t I �i �C iA
MAC Sept. 1994?
MAC Sept. 1994?
(vl� �� � � �c �,
�
�
' ' Continued.
�S`a
�� Issue: Noise Red.uction Through Modified Ta.keoff Proced.ures
. Goa1e Adoption of "Close-In" vs. "Distant" Takeoff Procedures
� io I�.ed.uce I�Toise Generati.on Over ]�endota I�eigiits
� Action Steps: , .
(�� 7. FA.�4, designs flight proced.ure
��� � be tested.
'� 8. F.AA. begins flight test
,.
�9 .
4t C.., � '�` ` f �.C: i::K r �r� Mv..�: �. � :7s' <"�.. �' :..b�l ir"""
�
:� /
` _- ? Page 8
�
�•
l:1�.i U%j%1: �
Fi�.ii. C v�r,� 1 �C��t 7_
. .
�,:` �.� r C �!.. Cv
0
���
�
� ; � ' �' � ; � � ` � ;'
�, �'r� �'• i i • ''l , �� -1 .,'•, �'' � .�
�' � 1�11 •i � .1�, i ' li � 11" . �'� �`-•
,. •� '�,
� �' ' � ' 1 ' . � • i'i �' ' . �
1,� • . �'
� �;1 "1 � !� � �',�
� � � � �
'� • -1 ,'��1' •['
� C � 1
0
� . " � , 1 1 • 1 U;' • i
M�1,' II�1 `1 , � 1;;
, ��
�'' �- �' , �•' �' r � � � r•
�' � . : - � i .
• .l���t1 J' U'�' " �•''�
_, .„_,
��" �� �-�,��---�� � � �--�...
��
� � SG,..��i�� t�� ��
;�
.. -,�
��3
�'.�
����� �� �-��.
�f.C......r"C�.n.. �y tt� ,!'�c_ r'� �f, /�<�
�,; �,Y6� ,i"'i �..v.-S
V
� � � C.��.� � �.
:� �-�..�.��
. � -
Ce a. �;.-�.. p v�.,,� � c. (1 t.;, 1�: -. �-r:. � o�., v-�-�.r�.. �
l�
. ' �
. ' �'
.•
.
, � - � • i �'
OCt.-NOV.
1994
�
��
�
Page 9 �
� ' . � � ; ' ' � '
° Issue: .�Yeighte� Awareness of 1Vlendo�a� Heights Air IVoise Conce�s
� Goa1: Produ ° ' ' ' •
ce and I)istxibute Infor�mat�ve Refrigerator Magnets
'���; Advertising the MAC .�,ir Noise Gomplaint Line.
�.
�� �4.ction Ste s:
P
,� �
i
1-�� 1.� In.vestigate costs of magnet
production and distribution
�
j-� 2. Commission to review design
u )
�-� 3. tJrder c�elivered to City Hall
�
, 4. Magnets distributed to Counci�
-� and Airport lZelations Comr�ission
:_.: 5. Commissio� to review fin.alletter
. and news release
.� .
�
;� 7.
<�
Magnets distributed to residents
Additional magnets available at
City Ha11 upon request
, t __. � Page 10
� ,.
e �. �
May 1994
�ri�c �� �- : ''�
St«�ff �une 16, 1994
. � �
Commission Ju1y 13, 1994
�
��
July 29, 1994
Until Gone
�
. � . � . � � �
�� Issue: Heigllten Awareness of Mendota. Hei ts Air Noise Conce
� rns
� Goa1: Expand Disiribution of A.�r Noise IZ;elated Information
� � A�tion Ste ° �
_ ps ° - Who When
:;� 1 . .
. m ,1 �
:�-��
�
- . .
� � �_ , . .�. � .�� '-r �
.
• � . �. � , ��
.'� -� • � •� �• � ' �
��, '
Invite guests to montl�ly ARC
meetzngs (ie,, N�x�. Hamiel, M�.
Wagoner, State elected ofiicials)
Expand coverage of air noise issues
in Ci�iy newsletter
5. Continue clistribution of refrigerator
magnets advertisin.g l�ZA,C a.ir noise
�, complai.nt line
`'��. � -� �.� �
� i
3;
._ `',''..
-.1 __
�—�,• ,�^ _....__
'`• `�U � t/�Jl.t
"�
�
r��.G, �., �-G_{'�,,,. j — 7�" � 1
Staff.
�� rr��;��((�
�
•c �•;;��
� •� •• r�
(. �(' � t /1 �'% t �j�? (j��� / � ( C: . � ....{ ( t:,::. Gr! c�.J ,l ""��" �.�% �.'i�n„t2. S./L. 1
�?
7 �
Page 11
��
� Issue:
� Goal:
• � � • � , � ; • � ;
Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns
' ��r i���-� r .. �.i • �- ��• .r ` �•
• �t �r r r
Action Steps:
I' 4.
,:
Review current d:Ystributio�n of
MA.0 Commissioners with AR.0
Prepare Iette� to gubernatoria�
candidates asking for t�heir
pos�tion on MSP expansion,
corridor use, MAC representation
Discuss City concerns with our
current l�Z.AC representa.tive
Monitor gubernatorial election
this fa11
Discuss concerns wi�h State
Senators and Reps. rega.rding
COIY1pOS1t1011 Of MA�:
6. ]Draft legislation to amend
'F��C� number of commissioners
�ijty
� and districts boun.daries
represented
;� � Page 12
Wh.o
Staff
• Staff
� ��
ARC �
��.
Staff
r��-- .
Staff/ARC
�
. , • •,
Sept. 1994
n
��e�i��' ,
`Nov. 1994
.
� �•
c.p l�` i t ln C1-� �. ,,,__.....----^ '"'..-...._ � .
N,.-..C. ("tJ �� r C `
� ;�; � (1 �.�..t� .. ;
;� _ .. -__
Staff jif J Ja�. �'9'.�-
,
� f �� �
� f
�
�`� � . #� .
f ,.
,- ; �; ,. , , .. ��; , .. .
��� ��`r.
��
1 1'; y; . ♦ �" (r'�,�...f. v ^ � ~)
�.. { (i
� .\
�
� , � • �' I ' � , ',
;..�; Issu.e: MSP I.,ong Ter� Comprehensive P1an
, Goa1: � Prevent Construct�on of Third North Parallel Runway
r�
�'� e
: _ Act�on Steps: ; Who W�ien
� . .
1. U�date Comnusslon on status Staff
�� of 1VISP � LTCP siudy /�,- , /
� ' (�v �'` "��S �" �orC'
•' 1 � 1, ' �' . � �.', A� 1' i �; �
� f
�r . � ,��• •�i��
� 3 .
��
. ; � ' . � ,'
��+� o11-g01llg
��� �
� - 1�i� � 1 1 � 11'ii'1
• 1
-� �� � , � 1.�' � �:
1, �7 11-1 . �• 11'- i � �' I' a
a_ � _.�_ �
. , , - .
� � - -� r- r- •�. •� r �-
� � °r • � � . . ,: ,,, , , � .
� - -� • _.�,i �� .
t.�
�;Oli11C1� �
� c� ��
�" �� 1 1 � i' � � II 1)'' 1,
� 1
.� •� i, , _ i, , .
�' � 1 li' f. �• ll' l � ;�
� �.. k-� �ws S
� E� �` �''�� � s Q
4 < <jv'e''� � .�`� �
Sen t. 1994 C �
r
�
AS Needed.
]Dec. 1994
� __
�u � ��� .�, � �" Page 13 � ,t.. - � ,�. �
'�C..� �.�-�^- �-z c�, l.,ut.-�o. .�- c....�t� w'f r� S. �"z� ��'�"T�! - t r..�.. �-z� ( i..�.-< vt a
� - tr`t.� � �
� j h�:_ c.^� - j� � S � /
F�,� V�.�--c:: �1 v..,,.ev�, -�. i tn-,'�. t �,.-u c� v� c aci. �-`/
1
l.
• � • � , � • �;
. Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft
.. Caoa1.: Assiz�°e Conversioa� by Fed.er�l( Dead�e o� Yea.� 2004
,..... .
Action Steps: . Who When
.1-e- Review l�f W.A►. obligatio�s :to
� MAC regarding Stage II phaseout
�st' . .
and research fleet mix at various �
� airports around �he country
�� 2. Prepare letter to �ZAC regarding
"� ongoing contract t��lks �vith NWA
to requesi inclusion of language
: _ ,� speci�g phase out date
:�
St��ff/�R.0
Stafi
. _ ••.
� • , � � ` •���r �i- . . • _� ,•,
� i e . � � � � r � r :.::`:,.— �. .., -- �,,��.
�'`=�-`"�,,..� 'n"-, P �,�� r`�.j�E� �
�`��y'� �
�- � '� � �� -� , �'���• ♦ �+.
4o I.etter to NWA asking for tlieir
cooperation in committing to
Year 2000 phaseouta ~� C�.c��
5.
' i
Prepare med.ia news releases
and informat�on letters
explaining issue and asking for
letters and/or calls to I�ZAC in
support of contractual language
Page 14
�
�
Staff
Sept. 1994
Sept. 1994
�C�- w �. � I-e��ex` -� ► n�u.�r�.
c�.I�'a�- c.,�nv�s� o� p rC�=� S S
(�1�D� 51.a�t�� c.�t� � 1'�C.__
�c�e, � i � �— �-e.vi� 5�,rrim o��
c�---�� �
. � . � � � � �
t - '`� �� �i� �� ��.�'tt
�•' /- 11 il" ". �; •,, . .,� �� -�,•- � -1' ,
�' _ �' � 1•i -
. Action Steps:
� � 1 � � �.
� • - �',' - . -� � . �,�
r ,�
.
. �'
� �•• '' � i -�
� ,
. �i - � • � � �
�. �� .��cr � � � ��,�•r
. � � � �a
• +�
e • i�.N�i � �- �;- -� -t � � ''`
.:
•t� - ��t��-t�.�•� � �� , . -�
� � •t �- •t��i`��.�•t � t
.�� �- - t� �- �- -� � - � , ��
�
����- �Jl'��1�Q'�'
°r ,_�
Nov. 1994 .
�. ��,
�. ••
r•
. � ••
Page 15 � (- �'
�.
Air Noise 1'lan o� � Action
Issue:. Assure Installation of Sound Insulatio�. in Schools
� -- A,ifected. by Air Noise ]Exposure
;. ,
. Goal: Air Noise� Mi�agat�on Througl� Sound Insulation
�
Action Steps:
1. Meet w�.t1i school St��ff
admuustrators to � ���
� -� discuss need.
2. �?Lnalyze MAC School Staff/ARC
Noise Monitoring Study �dY}�-
3. Work with schools to Staff/AI�C
to prepare funding ,
xequest for insulation
' ' rr � . � �r �•
.� � ��� .
• �
COUriCll
.
� •�
.
� �•
.
,.
. � ••
C,��1�-��r� w 1� l C,h�- i-%rm�, �,Q,� o�
��� b
� ��- � �'� v.� ��. `�.. � C�,�,��,��,, , �
� Page 16
0
0
�
�'�� • � � � � � . ��
., .
Phase-Out of Noisy Stage II Aircraft.
Nighttime Restrictions on Aircr�#� O erations: -�j►"li ' 1iv��%`� -� l.p��
►� C����C3.�� �CO� v� LJ� ��� % �-'�-�
Composition of MAC Body - Accountability Issues.-�1�,�'jOlJl�
MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Planning Issues - Expansion pf Existing
Airport.
Dual Track Airport Relocation to Hastings Site.
Remote Runway Development Option.
FAA Airspace Usage Study.
0
FAA "Ciose-In" vs. "Distant" Departure F'rocedures.
Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues.
Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedures.
Runway 4-22 Extension Issue - Mediation Underway.
a
Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update and Related Land Use
Controls.
. �
Noise Measurement Issues - Usefuiness of Ldn65 Contour. �
Equity of Current Runway Use System.
Sound Insulation of Air Noise Impacted Homes - FAA Part 150 Program.
Sound Insulation of Air Noise Impacted Schools - St. Thomas and Visitation.
Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS)
C,�'� � 18. Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure Over Minneapolis.
�J��^ 1, 9. Aircraft Engine Run-up Noise.
20. Global Positioning Satellite Technology - Implement 1995-96. `
m
1 1 11 . .1 .
April 8, 1996
To: Airport Rela,tions Commissioners
From: Kevin Batchelder, Interim City Ad
Subject: Discuss Dua1 Track Auport Decision
Last week the Legislature sent a bill to the Governor that would end the Dual Track
Airport Planning Study and includes a decision to keep the airport in its present location. We
are still waiting on a copy of the bill, however, we understand that it does prohibit, or prevent
the construction of a third parallel runway in the future.
Attached you will find an executive summary of a Joint Report to the Legislature fmm
the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. At tlus date it is not
known whether the Govemor has signed the bill. A copy of the bill is being forwarded by
Senator Deanna Wiener's office and will be availa.ble for review on Wednesday evening.
Discuss Dua1 Tra.ck decision.
C�
. � , � � � . . � . _ � �
'�,�;� '� �
TO: MAC Commissioners
Metropolitan Council Members
FROM: Nacho Diaz, Metropolitan Council
Nigel Finney, Metropolitan Airports Commission
RE: � REVISED REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE
DATE: March 7, 1996
Attached for your reyiew and information is a revised copy of the Draft Report to the
Legislature. This draft has been edited to simplify reading, and has been�expar�ded in
a number of areas to provide more information regarding issues raised during the
� ) course of the Dual Tra.ck Planning Process.
Also attached is a revised set of Findings and Conclusions, that reflect the discussion
that took place at the March 5, 1996, joint meeting of the Metropolitan .Airports
Commission and the Metropolitan Council. This attachment replaces the Findings and
Conciusions that are bound into the draft report. �
in addition, the following language wiil be added following the Site. Preservafion
discussion of page 5-10: .
Based on the requirements and time horizon (2020) specified in the Metro�politan
Airport Planning Act, it is not necessary to take action regarding site preservation at
this time. The MAC and Metropolitan Council retain the flexibility to re-evaluate the
feasibility and desirability of site presenration in the future should changing conditions
indicate that such action would be prudent.
�
C
� � �. . ..s. . . ..�
� ' � 1 • , ' • ,
The Dual Track Airport Planning Process was initiated by the Minnesota Legislature in 1989.
The Dual Track Airport Planning Process was designed as a comprehensive approach to
determining the future aviation facility needs of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and the
State of Minnesota. -
The agencies responsible for implementation of the Dual Track Airport Planrnng Process have
evaluated the two alternatives outlined in. statute, (expansion of Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport and development of a new airport), and have appropriately evaluated
other alternatives raised during the planning process including remote runways, supplemental
air.ports, high-speed rail, and site preservation.
The Metropolitan Council has completed the following major steps as required in the Dual
Track Statute:
Selected a Search Area for a Potential New Major Airport
Completed a Re-Use Study for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission has completed the following major steps as required
in the Dual Track Statute: �
Completed a Conceptual Design Study for a Potential New Major Airport
Completed a Long Term Comprehensive Plan for Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport �
Selected a site for a potential new major airport in the search area selected by
the Metropolitan Council
Completed an Update of the �ong Term Comprehensive Plan for Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport. �
Completed a Long Term Comprehensive Plan for a Potential New Major Airport
Ari Alternative Environmental Review Process was approved by the Minnesota Environmental
Quality Board for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process.
�.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropolitan Council have complied with the steps
outlined in the Alternative Environmental Review Process.
An extensive agency involvement program was developed, including the formation of
Technical Review Committees and review of documentation on all aspects of the study.
A comprehensive public involvement process was used by the agencies including ihe
formation of Task Forces, public information meetings, public hearings, reports, newsletters,
brochures, and direct mailings.
Information and study results have been made available to legislators through meeting$ as
requested with the State Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning, reports,
newsletters, and meetings with members and staff.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropolitan Council have developed an updated
set of aviation activity forecasts utilizing the best information available. �
Representatives of the aviation industry, including Northwest Airlines, participated in a series
of expert panels designed to provide early opportunities for input from all affected parties.
The forecasting process is complex and fluid, and takes into account a wide range of aviation
and socio-economic assumptions, including ongoing changes in the aviation industry.
The baseline forecasts project growth to annual levels of 33.4 million passengers and 520,000
aircraft operations by 2020.
A series of alternative forecast scenarios have been developed to evaluate the impact o�F
changes in critical input factors to forecast development. These changes represent a �ange of
assumptions regarding the airline industry and socio•economic characteristics.
The alternative scenarios provide annual ranges in 2020 of passengers from 18 million to 48
million, and operations from 365,000 to 640,000.
�
The Metropolitan Airports Commission, in November 1991, and February 1995 selected
Concept 6 as the preferred development option for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
in early 1996, NWA proposed an alternative MSP development �oncept. Subsequent
discussions between MAC and NWA evaluated differences between the two options and lead
to agreement that incremental expansion of the lindbergh Terminal can accommodate needs
through 2010 and possibiy longer depending on growth in activity, and that the Concept 6
2020 development plan would be used for purposes of planning and environmental review.
The Metropolitan Council, in December 1991 selected the Dakota Search Area as the location
for a potential new air carrie� airport. _ � �.!
The Metropolitan Airports Commission, in January 1994, selected Site 3 in the Dakota Search
( j Area, as the site for a new airport. In April 1995, the Metropolitan Airports Commission
`--' selected the Comprehensive Plan for a new airport.
Other alternatives have been evaluated as required during the planning process. These include
high-speed rail, remote runways, and use of supplemental airports.
■ High-Speed Rail - a proposed high-speed rail line to Chicago would not
divert enough activity to alleviate the need for a new runway or terminal
facilities
■ Remote Runwav - would become a new airport with a remote terminal;
� mo�e costly; operational problems
a Suonlemental Airport - cannot separate sufficient activity to alleviate the
need for additional runway and terminal capacity at MSP
None of the other alternatives meets the future aviation needs of the community, therefore
the evaluation has focussed on expansion of MSP and the new airport alternative.
�
�
Minneapolis-St. Paul international Airport, with the proposed expansion, has adequate capacity
to accommodate forecast demand through the pianning period as specified in the Metropolitan
Airport Pla�ning Act (2020). �
The issue of site preservation can be re-evaluated by the MAC and Metropolitan Council
shouid conditions change in the future.
Both expansion of MSP and the new airport will adequately, meet 2020 demand levels,
including the fiigh forecast of 48 million passengers and 640,000 operations. .
An expanded MSP, with activity levels at the high end of the forecast range and current
technology, would experience average delays above present levels.
� � � �
An expanded MSP, with activity levels at the high end of the forecast range and cur�ent
technology> could experience considerable levels of delay for short periods when poor weather
conditions occur.
Both alternatives provide sufficient runway length for long-haul flights.
The configuration of the new airport minimizes the need for aircraft to taxi across runways.
Th� facilities that would be developed at the nevv airport site could readily accommodate
passenger and operations levels significantly higher than forecast.
Protection of approaches to existing and proposed runways is essential to maintaining airport
capacity and �cammunity compatibility.
4 � ,
The average travel time to the new airport is about 20 minutes longer than to MSP.
Sixty-seven percent of the population of the Twin Cities region and surrounding counties is
within 30 minutes peak hour travel time of MSP; fourteen percent of the regional population
is within 30 minutes peak hour travel time of the new airport.
Costs of improvements to the regio�al highway system are $73 million for MSP and 5366 for
the new airport. These costs are not included in the Metropolitan Council's Transportation
Policy Plan nor in current MnDOT plans. � �
Additional state funding would be required to provide highway access to a new airport, and
to provide access to a new terminal at MSP. '
The number. of people exposed to noise levels of DN� 65 or greater at MSP would decrease
from 22,090 in 1994 to 7,620 in 2005, primarily due to conversion to an all Stage 3 airline
fleet; in 2005, the new airport would expose 175 people to noise levels of DNI. 65 or greater.
A comprehensive noise mitigation pcogram, not necessarily limited to the current Federal
standard (DNL 65), for areas adjacent to MSP must be developed and submitted to the
Legislature within 180 days aftsr a recommendation regarding future airport development is
submitted to the I.egislature.
The new ai�port would displace 1,132 residents; the MSP alternative would displace 227
residents.
The MSP alternative would produce 3,100 tons less of vehicular CO tcarbon monoxide)
emissions than the new airport; the new airport would produce lower on-airport emissions. ��
The MSP alternative would result in the loss of 360 acres of wildlife habitat; the new airport
would result in the loss of 6,835 a�res of wildlife habitat.
The new airport would result in the loss of up to 17,000 acres of farmland.
f 1 5
�
Both expansion of IV1SP and development of a new airport wouid result in an increase in direct
airport jobs from 14,900 to 16,600.
Cor�espondence from Northwest Airlines has indicated that due to the cost of providing
replacement facilities at a new ai�port and capacity at other locations, it may choose to
relocate some or all of 11,000 non-airport related jobs elsewhere. In addition, NWA has
indicated a 9 5% activity reduction at a new airport, with an accompanying further reduction •
in employment.
Indirect employment attributable to each alternative is approximately 19,600 jobs.
Average annual jobs associated with construction of a new airport would be approximately
5 times higher than for expansion of MSP.
: �
Visitor expenditures would be the same for either alternative. �
If a new airport is constructed, MSP could be redeveloped with 1.5 million square feet of
� office space, 3.3 million square feet of industrial space, 800,000 square feet of retail space, �<
and 1,800 residential units by 2020.
The projected cost (in 1995 dollars) for the MSP development plan is $2.8 billion; the
projected cost for the new airport plan is 54.5 billion.
.�
Capital expenditures to implement the MSP plan occur incrementally such that 33°� are
incurred by 2005; implementation of the new airport requires 80% of the cost to be incurred
by 2005.
Escalated costs to design and build the new airport plan are 51.1 billion more than the cost
to design and build the MSP plan.
_ _. __. --- - -----___._._..,,__ ___._r.._ _._.. _ .
� MAC must rely more heavily on borrowed funds, and less on internally generated funds and
PFC revenues, to finance a new airport. Projected financing cost for the new airport is 51.1
billion more than for the MSP plan.
When escalated design, construction and financing costs are considered, the new airport is
approximately $2.2 billio� more than expansion of MSP.
Airline charges per enplaned passenger would increase to S8 for the MSP plan and $11 for
the new airport pian (in 1995 dollars).
Northwest Airlines would i�cur an increase in annual costs of approximately S70 million to
replace existing maintenance facilities at a new airport. MAC could not afford to offset these
costs as an inducement to Northwest to relocate maintenance facilities to the new airport.
;
The ability to develop the MSP alternative on an incremental basis allows it to better adjust
to changing market conditions. �
The high forecast t640,000 annual ope�ations) can be accommodated at MSP with the one
�ew runway (north-southj included in Concept 6. �_
The new airport alternative requires most of the construction to occur in one phase. Any
reduction in air traffic below forecast levels after construction would result in excessive
facilities and create a significant financial burden.
The new airport has significant capacity to meet higher than forecast demands. �
.�
The environmental, g�ound access, community and economic development impacts associated
with the high forecast would not significantly affect the ability of . either alternative to
accommodate the higher activity levels.
7 `
C��ti ►� r ►�iZ��: :I _ � �
�� �
Apri18, 1996
To: Airport Relations Commissioners
From: Kevin Batchelder, Interim City Administrator
Subject: Discuss Noise Abatement Departure Profiles
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is considering implementing a Close-In
departure procedure this summer as an attempt to mitigate noise impacts in the communities
snrroundi.ng MSP. Cunently, the airport is operated with a Distant procedure in which
aircraft cat back on their takeoff thrust. A distant depariure allows an airplane to get further
from the airport, however, its altitude is not as great as a Close-In departure, which climbs
faster.
Noise contours and population counts were presented at the February 16, 1996
;" � MASAC Operations Committee meeting. Copies are attached. The close-in procedure
- appears to have a small area of impact outside the distant departure procedure in the northern
Copperfield area. This is reflected by the higher population count in the DNL 60 Popula.tion
chart. (Please see second page of attached MASAC Operations committee meeting.)
Mendota. FIeights has submitted updated popula.tion and household counts to the MAC
and their consultant, because of a perceived discrepancy in the contours that have been over
laid on a ground map and the population projection for the area between the distant and close-
in contours. Subsequent meetings of the MASAC Operations Committee meetings have been
cancelled on March 7 and March 25. This item was not discussed at the March MASAC
meeting, however, you will notice that the MASAC Operations minutes indicate that MASAC
will consider this item at its April meeting with a June implementation proposed.
According to the chart shown in the minutes, a close-in procedure would remove 520
people from the DNL 65 area of Mendota Heights, however, it would add 380 people to the
DNL 60 popula.tion. Overall, there is significant noise mitigation around the airport with the
close-in procedure, if the modeling is accura.te.
� ' � �� 1
Discuss the Close-In departure procedure and its proposed implementation for June
1996 and provide the City Council with a recommendation.
�
C'
. _ .
C
MINUTES
; � MASAC OPERATIONS COMMIITEE
February 16, 1996
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Office Lobby Conference
Room, and called to o�der at 9:35 a.m.
The foilawing members were in attendance:
Mark Salmen, NWA - Chairman
Bob Johnson - MBAA
Chuck Curry - ALPA
Dick Keinz - MAC
Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights
Jon Hohensfein - Eagan (Lorenzo Davis - Eagan)
A vi :
John Foggia - Technical Advisor
Roy�Fuhrmann - MAC
Denis Corneli - FAA
. � .
HNTB NADP Contours
Evan Futterman - HNTB
Kimbe�ly Hughes - HNTB
The report package distributed at the meeting is an integral part of the meeting information and is
attached to the minutes.
� � ' �I��Zi��
Evan Futterman and Kimberly Hughes, HNTB, distributed and reviewed the preliminary NADP
contour population analysis comparing Close-in and Distant procedures, and DNL contour analysis
assessing the cumulative effects of the two profiles - distance versus altitude. Clo.se-in procedure
points of interest are as follows:
• The population impact summary, indicates the Close-in procedure will be an overall benefit
to MSP. Based on the preliminary analysis, HNTB recommends utilizing the Close-in
procedure, assuming a full thrust [maximum performance] take-off.
• Utilizing the Close-in procedure, population reduction within the DNL65 Contour is as
follows
1
COMMUNITY DNL 60 Population DNL 65 Populatian
Reduction Reduction
Minneapolis � 5,820 1310
North Richfieid 760 1570
South Richfield 365 660
Inver Grove Heights 160 outside contour
Bloomington 0 540
Mendota Heights (380) 520
Eagan (40) 40
St. Paul 210 outside contour
The Close-in procedure utilizes a lesser thrust cut-back than the Distant procedu�e and
aircraft attain a higher altitude sooner, causing the DNL contour to end closer to the airport.
There is an overall improvement within all noise zones.
Charles Curry noted that, up to 800 feet AGL, both the Close-in and Distant procedures are
identical - same thrust for takeoff. All Close-in procedures are flown at a full thrust setting
and all Distant procedures are assumed to be flown at reduced thrust.
A discussion session followed.
The committee agreed to pursue implementation of the Close-in procedure and suggested the
following steps
� Northwest will validate their procedures and forward to HNTB who
will report back to the Operations Committee March 7 with a newly
generated contour, and distribute an updated report package. --
� Final repo�t is scheduled for presentation as follows: MASAC in
April, forwarded to P&E and the Full Commission in May, with a
proposed implementation in June.
� Depending on the final analysis, Northwest will need 30-days in
which to update the Jeppeson Manual and notify all pilots. �
John Foggia relayed that approximately 6-months after the Close-in procedure is implemented, an
assessment would be conducted to quantify the differences between the current "Distant" procedure
and the potential change to a Close-in procedure. Current actual data on the Distant procedure
already exists. This would be compared to acfual ANOMS data collected on a new Close-in
procedure, taking into consideration seasonal differences. The ANOMS data analyses would be
explicit enough to ascertain impact of the Close-in procedure.
�
C
C
Mark Saimen, Northwest, informed members that there are three different levels of departure thrust
;" i depending on aircraft type. He will validate each of the procedures by aircraft type and forward this
information to HNTB who wiil generate a new contour. An updated report package will be
distributed at this time.
MASAC Goals and Objectives were deferred.
John�Foggia reported that MAC Chairman Grieve requested a status �eport af the 1995 Objectives.
A memo outlining the Status of each element of the 1995 noise area objectives is attached.
The next Operations Committee meeting is scheduled MARCH 7� 1996 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting was adjou�ned at 10:55 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Jean Deighton
Committee Secretary
'� )
�
_ �
__ _ _ _
,,
,
, ..
�� -
.....,.._... ..
�...��'�'�''""°`�o�." �.:��'�� �e�.�•�. _:
�- ,
�: 'a
'' • � �
�, . � . ' . � 1 ,
� . a � ' - . :' . � , .
' � -
,; . . • • • . ' I 1 _ _ _ • . ' .
� . e � c �
. y e = _ � _ ., . � . . . -
. . . .
. . . ' ' • � ' . 1 � '
� �
• - � ' �
` � � � ,� � � .
� �:, ' . i
• � � � • . •
. • . . � '
.
• � � , ' � . - � . -' � • .
o�v�aiswvomm�m�mmee�m�mom�vmom�mmmm.�mea�so�ovnmo���mmm�mommeawme�avmas��o��a�vsmaso�
� , �
� � i �
� � �
• '
OO-OO�Oo0000..00OBYO-OO.OY�O■e�.00Y 0Y.-�O�■.■00■YVY.Y■IOO■YYOO�■.�O�vO.O.SO�Y060YY/BY
�.� ., J� � � �� � � s :�;e �.: ' , .
, � •
�
� , '� � �. �� .1 � ' � -��..
�', � • '
�' � �� � � •.: : :.•
,�. � .. � .., • � �,� , 1. ' � . .�.� �.� �. �. ��
� --- � �
�':�i� r� l t... � 4�
�_ ��,-�j�
� i ' , ���-�j �
' ,��:,r
but �ir or � �;��: �
� �� �� ����� r. �
. . ,, �.
noise abatement programs de
veloped with the help of noise`.
affected residents. AlthougH•ntit
solving the problem, these �ef-
forts have reduced average.tta�=
ly noise by 25 percent. .�. -;
For six yeazs the Metrogoli-
tan Airports Commi�sion
(MAC� has f�llowed the Legi�la�-
ture's mandate to explore �arhat
capacities and facilitiesi „ar�
needed to raaee� r.}�e coanrr�uu�ii�-
i
ty's air service demands. ' -
The Legislature has rese�d
the right to choose where those
capacities and facilities shot��d
be located. The governor tias
asked that the Legislature move
up the decision date. MAC can
have all essential information
available to assist the Legisla-
ture in making an earlier deci-
sion.
There are at l�ast three rays
of hope for the short term:
D� Airlines are required by
federal law to have a stage
(quieter) fleet by the end o� tt��.,
decade. � � �
> MAC and Honeywell `a'r�e
installing a Glotial PositioFrin�
System (GPS), a navigatiniial
aid that will enable aircra'ff 'ro
land using many differenh �ap-
proaches, eliminating the r��eti
to follow a long straigt�.c-in
landiug approach. This wilydif-
fuse the noise of landing���-
•craft. .
D MAC will continue : its
home acquisition and h;�rii�e
and school insulation pio-
grams, which have been' arvell
received by those who have`tak-
en advantage of them. � � •
If the decision is made ndt 'to
build a new airport, MAC�will
indeed be very .serious atiotit
helping preserve all the beauti-
ful areas in the southern parr:of
the Twin Cities metropolita�
area. MAC tooks forward..to
working with O'Hara and athe
concerned residents to acc,om�
plish that end. ;
Megan O'Hara's piece on
your Commentary Page about
aircraft noise deals with a seri-
t ous and troublesome problem,
but it is inaccurate and does
nat look at the entire picture.
She probably had no control
over the headline, which com-
' pazed jet noise to milfoil. It
� should be pointed out, howev-
' er, that whereas milfoil has little
or no redeeming value, jet noise
is an unfortunate byproduct of
airport activities which result in
the creation of 113,000 jobs,
more than $5.5 billion annually
injected into the lQcal commu-
nity, much of it as wages� and
more than $350 million in taxes
for local and state coffers. Stop-
ping the flights means cutting
off the economic bene�ts and
job creation.
It is not true that the "resi-
dents of Minneapolis get more
than 90 percent of the airport's
flights" over their homes. Nor is
it true that the percentage has
increased in recent yeazs.
October 1995 total move-
ments over south Minneapolis
were 47.? percent of the total.
1995 totals through November
were 46.1 percent. 1989 move-
ments were at 48.6 percent.
Movements over Mendota
Heights and Eagan average
about 55 percent.
What O'Hara has apparently
done is add the percentages of
landings and takeoffs together
to azrive at 90 percent. Using
that logic, any city that had 100
percent of the landings and 100
percent of the takeoffs would
be subject to "200 percent" of
total movements.
Nevertheless, the noise
problem is a real and serious
problem. It is not easily solved.
As for her statement about
the governor [and MAC] not
"giving a passing nod . . . [toj
seeking solutions for the 20,000
to 30,000 Minnesotans harn-
mered by jet noise," she has
totally ignored the millions of —). Robert Stassen. Deputy
dotlars spent over the years to executive director, Metropoli-
�r�itigate noise through manv tan Airvorts CommL�sinn_ '
1' ;, 1'''' 11 ' fl i;11 1 1'
'' i ' I i •
masac/opslbasein95.wk4 28/07196
i ).
�
C
�•
�
►
•
•
•
•
•
�
•
►
�
�
►
►
•
•
�
►
0
•
w
9
im�'WCan�-a.oxa s/u/ae t
�
0
0
� �
�
•• o
�
n m
0
� o
O o
0
0
o �
0
0
0
�
C
q:�i�sa,or�o�rs�oerr.ca-coaxa x/u/oa
o d � °_°� � ao-nu�z� c��-
° � d � a !; o° � �, � > > �. S�
_ _ <.�, �_.� ��y � a �
O � n n Q '+ n �
. � !C = � � � '?.�! N � � .
� t0 �
? fD � �
� ? n' a'
�. Cfl
-P
`0
O
o� �
� �° C
vwi cNnc'i'o �� w °�C
� N��, o� r
CD m N N N -� �
O O O O O O O CN7t O O � _I
v � '
� �Z O
'� � � W c�n z
� o rn -.
�
� a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n
z O
v � z,+ � a, o
°/ o o �
� CWJi O O O O O O O O O �
�
Z ^
`y V � �
o �,
� �
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. rn
�
Z
�
vo m
� �m D
o vo �rnw �W'o' ��
�0000�0000 � �
� � C
Z �
� �
o �„
o � � � -.�rnrn m
00 00000000 -0
, o �'7
`a V O
O p
O 'P m rn
� � O o O O o o CNi� p �
0 C
Z �
V
w t't'i
-> N �
� o0 0000000o V)
�t mcn�o�5 oo�ntnZ� c�c-
� � c< o� 3�n ��' c� S a C/�
y
� � .Z7, � C
�p = � �p � � n p � � �
11f tD O �,.�� '?'! N �• 1
tC i � � lp �p ••-�
�- �o o, o, �
�� �
� �
`�
O
w �° C
v -+ n� -. .., u, n� ao o �� r
� tn co ca �
� 000ao 00000 '�
oZ �
N � O
� N �,�� �^ z
� a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n
Z O
� � C
Q � J � � � Z
O O O O O O O O O O �
Z„'^�
`� V C�
�o � w �
V, .p
d O O O O O O O O p O -�
D
�
�
vo rn
�cHo r. rn �
� °� D
� o r
o rno cnrn w ��� r' �
� O O O O O O O O p p Z
fA �
� C
z �
� �
� �, � � a, c°fn m
� '00000 00000 -C)
� O
Z
`A V ` J
A �
�� rn
� O O O O O O O O p p Q
v C
Z �
r
o � m
� �
� o0000 00000 �--
C
C
C
t7�f��c'
r�oo�
OOz'��
mo��v
Z��=�-�i
m zo
z
_ � ,
� Z
z
v� o c�'`'i, � m
0 0 0 � D
'o
O
o r �
s � z N �
� .A � � �
� � O CT� �
O O O (7
r
o O
z v�
r
o °-�° o � m
aoo � Z
-�
o �
j r "1
.a _► Q C7'1 �
O O O Z
�
❑
m
°��o� D
ay��� �
Z rn m O�' C
~ZC�Z ;t7
m � rn
z C�
_+ O
� �
�
D
z �
, .� � � tA
y�o o Z
000
� u, r
V U�i Cn
O O
�
Z
w rv �
o � o
0 0
�
Z
r
N � <O �
O O O
0 n � n � �
v�r'%�Oc�c
y00Z'o�
ZR,yirnOCp
..iZoc��
m � z o
z
V t�D N O
O O O
0
Z
� r
o rn rn c°n'
N N O
0 o a
�
z
r
. -. � v
W �A O O
V N Ch
aoo
0
z
r
A N O�o �
0 0 0
y��ov
.yoOzm
Zmrno�
-+Z�cz
� � �
m c
z
�
�
t r
�► .p � a:
-� rn c
000
0
Z
r
h. � rn c°'i,
0 0 0
�
Z
r
� v
,i v n'j'i �
cr� o cn
0
Z
r
V
� —� ... Ch
G7 tD .p
D O O
z
O
�
�
_
.il
G�
2 �
'n �
m -�
r
O �
n
r
O
�
rn
�
Z
�
�
D
Z
-i .
�
rn
D
�
�
C
�
rn
C�
O
�
�
D
�
�
O
Z
\
c ,
�
�
�r�-�oo�
..�.�ooz-o�
ZtnmO�o
-iZ��O� .
m zZ
�
o O
z c
r -�
_
o c.Nn � �
0�
c
n
_
�
i rZ- rn -�p
r
o � � ,
o (7
r
o O
z tn
r m
-� �
o � Z
1
0 0
z �^
r �
v D
o Z
-i
v
m
ytn�-�O� Y
Zmmo� �
C
�z��� rn
m z C�
� �
�
D
z �
-. -' � O
c�o �, o Z
0 0
0
y r� O O C
�OOZ-o�
ZmmoCo
�z��c��
�
r'' Z z
�
0 0
z �
r -�
0 0 0 � �
Z
rn
r
z �
r Z
�
0 0 0 "'
0
z
r
V
� O O �
000
�
ncnvc�o
=`yl"'�Ip,�<",,
ny00Zm
�Zrnmo�
TIyZc�cZ
� �
m c
z
�
�
v
z
r
�� �
�oo �
��
o�
�
Cn
"D
,
C7
r
O
�
m
Z
�
�
�
D
Z
--I
0
m
D
�
--i
C
�
m
f�
O
�
-o
D
�
�
O
Z
C
�
7 O f� '� C� '� '-
=yr�OC��
A.y00Z't7—
;�j�''tynmOCo
�~Z���-�-i
m zo
z
W
z o
r p
c,�"i, cNJ, o �
00o Z
G�
�
Z Z �
i �
000 � ' (7
i
z �
r rn
o �
00o Z
-�
z �
r �
�
c.~i� D
00o z
�
�
rn
=Nr�o� p
ayoozm �
Zy,t�C'>-ir �
�,mrn0�
myZ��� �.
m � m
_+ O
� �
�
D
z �
�
►v t`,' � O
n� rn w o Z
cn o cn
o�o 'Cpn c�n
O O
��
C7
y r� � � C
.yooz-o�
Zmrno�o
�z����
m zo
z
, � y
��rn
0 0 0
0 0 0
o O o
V
O
0 0 0
c~n
r�n�
Og
mmo�
Zc�Z
� �
m c
z
�
�
z
m
�
�
�
O
m �
x �
rn �
� �
Z n
r
v--�i O
�
rn
Z
�
0
c/i
D
Z
-i
�
m
D
�
C
�'
m
n
O
�
�
D
�
�
O
Z
C�
0
��oo�
v�i�-Zicc��n
moor�o
ZC�=�-�i
m z�
z
c� m
� z
�j v
wc�,m rn O
000 �
D
x
m
� z � �
x
N 00 � C�Jf -i �
O O O � C7
r
v O
z cn
�
� � � rn,
000 � Z.
.,..
o �
� �
� -. c.�i+ D
00o Z
�
�
m
=y��o� D
zav�i°-Zi� �
�ZtnmO� �
rn."�Zc�z �
m � m
z c�
� �
-o
Y�
o �
z �
r �
��rn rn
oww o Z
�
c'�i,r'c�"�ppc
y00Z��
�mrno�v
'�z���c�
m zo
z
r
rn
0 0 0 �
0
z
r
rn
000 ""
v
z
r
0 0 0
0
�
Z
r
�
00o v'
��o�
mmo�
Zc��
���
m Z
-=i
�
000 -
c
z
r
rn
000 �'
d
Z
r
v
0 0 o Q
v
z
r
�
00o U'
m
c
�
Z
�
<
r
m �;
�
"0
�
(7
r
O
�
rn,
Z
�
0
�
D
Z
--i
�
rn
�
�
. C
�
m
C�
O
�
'o
D
�
�
O
Z
�
� r � � Q C
..i�OZ��7
a,,cnc�-�ccn
Zr,nmo.y o
^iZ����
m za
z
-
v ,-��
z .�
r D,
� o m o c
000 �'
000 �
o n
Z r-
r �
o �
00o m
z
� �
� v_
�! �
O O O � D
�o�-��v y
=i„r�o� �
D y O O z rn �
Zy V�n—Ir C
�Zn�mO� �
m--iZ��z m
�
m Z O
�
-i -n
C/) D
�
�
Z z
� � i r
.a W N �
O O O O
O O O
O O O
�
z
r
y
O
O O O
�
Z'
r
�
0 0 0
�
`. a
• o
c�Oc�-oc»
a.,�"yooz�
�Zmmo�
my�v��
� o
rn z
m
C7 D
Z �
j � r y
0 0 � Z
�i
w
�
r•z•�
v
m
r
r
z
�
c
z
�
�
.c� .r� c
N O C~7�
�
Z
r
rn
-► N j �
O O Q
�
Z
r
V
O
. N -�
pf O Ut
�
Z
ri
c�n
000
�
�
�
n
r
�
rn
z
o'
�
�
Z
�
v
m
D
�
C
�
m
n
O
�
�
�
�
�
O
Z
��-� � m�� �
-T vm La. r��
�_1� --q�
SUMMARY OF ORDINANC:E NO. 232
ORllINANCE FOR AIRCRAFT NOISE AT�ENUATION
An Ordinance promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of Mendota Heigt►ts, Minnesota, requiring com�liance with noise reduction
standards and building construction.
The City Cauncil of � the City of Mendota Heights l�as determined that the
following summary of the .above-referenced ordinance (the °tOrdinanee") cleartq
informs the public_ of the intent and effect af the Urdinance, •.and shall be
published in lieui of publishing the entire text of the Ordinance.
The City of Mendota Heights has � determined that aircraft naise impacts
development in certain areas oF the City, that such aircraft noise is beyond
the authority of� the City to cantrol and that proper construction methods may
attenuate aircraft noise inside the structures in a manner necessary to promote
and preserve the health, safety and welfare � of the citizens of Mendota.
iieights. �
Section 7 of the Ordinance�'establishes four aireraft noise zones. which are
delineated an . the diagram hereinafter set fortli and incorporated in the
Ordinance. ' �,
�' � Section 8 provides that all construction or reconstruction requiring a building
�- permit and located within an aircraft noise -zone shall meet or exceed the naise
compatibility tables set forth in the Urdinance. The applicant must
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance prior to issuance
af the permit. , � �
Section 10 of the Ordinance provides ihat any person applying for a building
or occupaney permit must inelude with the application the plans and
specifications fvr the work describing the building, building materials. heating
. and ventilation systems and providing "S.ound Transmission Class" iasw�ist
term is defined in the .Ordinance) ratings for exterior roof! ceilings, ,
widvws and doors. Certain minimum standards for mechanical ventilation
syatems, ceiling exter�or windows and door frames, chimney closing devices on
' fireplaees, ventilation duets, weather stripping .and penetrations through
exterior walls by pipes, ducts, conduits and etce, are set forth .in Section 10
of ' the Ordinance. ��Section 10 further provides that the City shall have 30
days to approve or reject the n� meet or exc ed�the applicableh equirements.�d
to approve the �plans if. the pla
Section 10 also provides that no construction shall occur prior to the appraval
vf the appropriate plans and specifications by the City.
� )
Sectian �11 provides that the .City shall have the right to
order to determine complianee with the approved plans.
corrective action. or in lieu thereof, the �building own
repart based upon field tests showing cat�aPliance with th
perform inspections in
The City may order
�r may submit a test
� requirementa.
Seetion 5 of the Ordinance provides that the aireraft noise zanes shall overlay ..
the established zoning districts, and that all territory within any aircraft noise
a
\ , �. �.
� � �
zone shall also be suhject to the requirements established by ttie other
applicable ordinances of the City.
ATTEST:
.�,�,...�`1h ,�2��.,�,...,,_. . .
K thleen M.. Swanson, City Clerk
A
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA iiEIGHTS .
:Byi ' . . �'+'�, .;�v .��/j� +""�
� Charles E. ZMertensotto, 'Mayor
.. . ;
. , . .. .
: x�.. -,.. .- . :;: _.�.�.. . _ . . . . �
-•. . • . , . . . ['.:t.. _.�:e=(i;:�,'�.. . ...;.r�._. . , ' :. ._ ,, . � �.. _ ' . ' . . • .. . . - .
. . . � . . , . . . • _�;M; :: i . ,. � , : t..' ' . . � � z � ' , ' � ... ..- .,. . . � .
,.... .. _ . . : ., . . . . . `:. f.'i i>s . � _ :: . . .
. � � . _ • .. . _ . .-i�.. ..
.. � � ..� � . ... ., . . .���.._..:..- . ;r,' . . ... . . .
' . - . .. . � • .. 'i: � � . . . . � � ..
� � ' � . ... .. . , ,.,... . . . , ... . . ' . � .. . . , . • �:+-. . rr• ^ . .. , . . � . . .
� .. 'ti' . .. : . - ., .. . .��:�' . tii��.
. . . . .. .. . . . . � .. � , � �: _ . _
. ..:i - ..�_ .... .. . ...:d:. _ 1. . . . .:j.}... Y . ., ,. .......: . _ . ., ' .
. . f . ., _ • .. . .... . . . �
— . .1.. ... ,. , ... �^�sfs1� . •fti e,�3 - � . . ' ' •
.. . , �,�� ......... ... .. . .. ,_ . . _I�.�
.. . .. .. .�,;. _ .... .i.FC...n' . ..a....r..d_ '�. � �* � . :: ..
. , � ' a.� �. . . . . S: .�. � S..^ t.� "
. .. ,^.. ' ' l '�,."?` �. si.. ;;;;5,'' ' . .: • .. . ,. �
.. .. . ... . . ,. r.:'r.'.+...<� � L1 � i
' �^ . S' �!�.'' .{s�''hd ly'S;�}d.:'.l'3.✓. •3f�u`. 3:,'f{i i..�it... . . ,.i.:t�..t.�'.t '^; _ . '�,. —_ ...
'K'f"�i:�i: „ ..�:".�*...ra.:l:: ti��.i
C
C
C
�
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 23 �L-
ORDIIdANCE FOit AIRCRAFT NOISE ATTENUATION
An O=dinance promoting the health, safety and
general welfare of the citizens of Mendota Heights, Niinnesota,
requiring com�liance with r►oise xeduction standards
o • in building coristruction.
SECTION 1. .Statutorv Autharity
This ordinance is adopted pursuant to M.S. Chapter 155, 473.�•
SECTION 2. Findinas of Fact
The Citx of Mendota Heic�hts £�n�oiseatthat�sa�denoi etis�beyondithereas
of the City is im�acted by aircra
that certain uses of land•are
regulatorx authority•oi the City to control;
inappropra.ate in areas of afthnaseCresultingein negative impactsron �enot
adequately attenuate aircr
health, safety and welfare af the.residents or inhabitants of the�
structures;.that, through proper constructivn me'�hods, the means exist to
-"'�:enuate azrcraft noa.se to interior levels which alleviate such negative
�_____�iacts; and that the.requirements of this ordinance are neaessary to
pramote and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the�citixens of
Mendota iieights . _.
SECTION 3. Purpose �.
The purpose of this OrdinaneCi�s of Mendota He�.ghtswberconstructed with
portions of buildings within the y
materials and in such�a manner that aircraft noise.is.attenuated by the
structure to an interior level whi�esidents,aall in accordancetwithe'�1�eh�
safety and general welfa�e of��the
Metropolitan Counail's.Guidelines for �odr modelinatarlrehabilitatingrant
Noise. This ordinance shall not apply � urtenance to
existing residential building, nor to the constructa.on o€ an app
an existing residential building.
SECTION 4. De�initions '
For,purposes of this Ordinance, the terms defined in this section have
the meanings glven them in this section.
AIRCRAFT NOISE ZONE. Aircraft Noise Zone means,any one af the four zones
identified vn the map attached hereto as Appendix A and incorporated herein.
CONSISTENT: Land uses that are acceptable.
dRA. dBA means a unit of sound pressure level weighted by use af the A,' �
•i !ering charaateristics and weighting as specified in the Amerxcan National
Standards Institute Specification�for Sound Level Meters (ANSI S1.4-1983j,
which is hereby incorporated by reference. dBA is also referred to as an A-
weighted decibel.�
INCONSISTENTs Land uses tha� are not acaeptable even if acoustical
treatment were incorporated in the structure. '
"INFILL DEVELOPMEINT" pertains to an undeveloped parcel or parcels of land.
proposed for development similar,to or less noise-sensitive�than the
developed parcels surrounding the undeveloped parcel (£or>exam�le, a new
house on a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood, or a new industry on a
vacant parcel in an established industri:al area). �
Leq. Leq means the equivalent�conti,nuous sound level which over�the period
of one hour has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time varying sound.
Ldn. Ldn means the day-night average level, or the 24-hour equivalent
continuous sound level (time-averaged A-weighted sound levelj from midnight
to midnight, obtained after the additiori of 10 dBA to sound levels measured
from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. - :
"P�,TOR REDEVEIAPMENT" means a relativel� large parcel of land with all
structures proposed�for extensive rehabilitation vr demolition, and
different uses (ior example, demolition of a square"block of o1d�Office and
hotel buildings for new•housing, office, commerc$aZ uses; conversion of
warehouse to office and commercial usesj.. .
�
"NEW DEVELOPMENT" means�a relatively large, undeveloped tract of land (.
proposed For development (for example, a residential subdi�tision, industrial �
park ar shopping center). `
NOISE REDUCTION LEVEL. Noise reduction level means the difference between
the exterior and interior sound level, expressed in dSA, which is achieved
by the intervening structure. ' •
RECOGNIZED ACOUSTICAL SPECIALZST. A recoc�nized acoustical.specialist means
a person qualified by education and expera.ence to.conduct.sound analysis af
buildinqs and approved for such purpose by the City. The approved
individual shall have at.least three �ears of experience in�the field of
sound control; a degree from a recor�nized institute of higher learning in
the process of sound analysis of buildings.
"RECONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES" pertains to replacing a
structure destroyed by fire, age, etc., to accommodate the same use that
existed before destruction, or e�cpanding a structure�to accommodate .
increased demand for existing use, but does not pertain to remodeling or �
rehabilitating existing residential buildings nor to the construction of an
appurtenance to an existi,ng residential building.
SOUND. Sound means energy that
or in other materials and is the
hearing. It is commanly called
is transmitted by pressure waves in thQ a;Y
objective cause af the sensation of
noise if it is unwanted.
SOUND ATTENUATION. Soundsourceuand�receiverthe reduction in sound level
which accurs between the
SOUND LEAK. Sound leak means an ��tremelynsmal1rholeseonc�racksWh1In sound
can pass. Sound leaks are vften
general, an air leak �s � saund leal.
SOUND LEVEL. Sound level means�the level of£�eune�cresnetworkssurWheniAh a
sound lnveismused,athe sound leveleishexpressedas dBA.
weighti g ,
SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (STC�he deureetofnsoundltransmissionnlosssspecified
number rating.for describing g
for a wall, wsndow, partit�he building elementgwillmaffordThe higher the
STC, the more attenuation
SECT=ON 5. Sao e and Efteet
The Aircraft Naise�Zones establisdinancet�os 401,nadoptedaAprile�lay
the zoning districts established by or
1g62, so that any parcel °shedhzoninngdistricts.erlTerritoryhwithinsa givenn
one or more af the establi g
averlay zone shali�be suaj�etulat onsrof themCits.esWithinheachyadoptedher
applicable ordinances'an q
o��rlay zone, all uses.shall be permitted in acc rdance with the reg�oa��ate
f)the underlying zoning districts, provided, however, that the app p
�uilding permit is first obtained, and provided further that no use
�esignated as inconsia�aninoorporatedshereinatshalltbe permitted�acThis
hereto as Appendix B
�rdinance applies to all construction and any reconstructed portion o a
�uilding requiring a builninor rehabilitationeof�ance istin�eresidential.
�rdinance except remodeli g u�enance to an existing residential
�uilding or�the construction of an app
�uilding. �
SECTIaN 6. Prerectuisites�to Issuance of Buildina or Occupancv Permit
Any application far a Cityeafinean�Aircraft�No selZane mustcdemonstrate
permit pertaining to land locat
compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance prior to the issuance of
such permit. •
SECTION 7. Establishment of•Zones
�The fallowing Aircraft Noise Zones are hereby established as part of
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Mendota Heights.
Aircraft Noise Zone I
Aircraft Noise Zone II
Aircraft Noise Zone SII
Aircraft Noise Zone IV
�" iboundaries of the Aircraft
,ached hereto as Appendix A
Naise zones are as delineated on the diagram
and incorporated herein.
SECTIAN 8. Noise Compatibilitv Tables
All construc�ion or reconstruction requiring a buildin� permit and
loaated within an Aircraft Noise Zone shall be constructed in such a way
that the applicable noise level reduction requirements contained in the
Noise Compatibility Tables (Appendix B) are met or exceeded. Where a
particular struc�ure contains different land uses, the more stringent .
requirements of the applicable table shall app1X, exce�t where it is
architecturally possible to�aehieve the appropriata noise reduction leve�
for�each different use, and�the uses are acoustically separated by a wall or
partition with a minimum STC of 25. .
SECTION 9. Enforcement
The provisions of this Ordinance shall be enforced pu=suant�to Sections
i0 and 11.
SECTION 10. Plans and Sbecifications
Aa Al1 applicants for a building or occupancy �ermit shall include With the
ap�lication all plans, specifications or other information reguired by
this Ordinance. The plans and specifications shall describe in
sufficient detail all pertinent features of��the building, bu�ldin�
materials, heating and ventilation systems, including but not'limited to
the STC ratings of exterior roof/ceilings, w�lls, windows, and doors;
and other pertinent data as may be requested b.y the City to indicate
conformance with th� appliaable noise reduction level requirements as
specified in the Noise Compatibility Tables. To assur•e the eliminatian
of sound leaks, the plans and specifications shall demonstrate
compliance with the following standards.:
l. A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide
the minimum air circulation and f=esh air supply requirrements as
provided in the State and Uniform Building Code for the proposed
occupancy without the need to open any �ex�erior doors or windows.
2. The perimeter of all exterior windows and door frames shall be
sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction.
3. Fireplaces shall be equipped with well-fitted chimney closing
devices.
�_
4. All ventilation ducts, except range hoods, connecting interior space
to outdoors shall be provided with a bend such that no direct line
of sight exists from exterior to interior through the vent duct.
5. Doors and windows shall be constructed so that they are close-
fitting. Weatherstripping seals shall be incorporated to eliminate
all edge gaps.
6. All penetrations through exterior walls by pipes, ducts, conduits
and the like shall be caulked airtight to the exterior constructioY�
The City may require that plans and specifications be certified bv �,p,.�;::��•.:-
� ,
Recognized Acoustical Specialist for compliance with this Ordinance.
B. Within 30 days of receipt of appropriate plans and specifications, the
City shall approve oi� reject the plans based upon the ability of the
proposed ma�erials and canstr�action techniques to adequately attenuate
noisee The City shall approve the plans and specifications if:
l. The plans and specifications adequately document �the .-use -.of
construction assemblses�that meet or exceed the STC�ratings
required :by -the following tablei
STC RATINGS REQUIRED FOR EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEMENTS
SPECIFIED NOISE
LEVEL REDUCTION
dBA
20
25
30
35
RE4UIREU STC RATING NEEDED FOR COMPL2ANCE*
Roof/CeilinQ Walls Windows Doors
40
45
50
55
40
45
50
55
30
35
4U
5 45
20
25
30 .
35
(�".. SO 40
� 40 . 60 60 .
*All values +/- 2 STC. The STC laboratory test of construction materials
and assemblies must be conducted according to the requirements of the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM E90 or ASTM E 336); or
2. The plans and s�ecifications have been certified bX a'Recognized
Acoustical Specialist as achieving the interior noise level
reduction required by the applicable portion of the Noise
Compatibility Table.
In the event that the drawings are rejected, the reasons for such
rejection shall be-submitted to the applicant in writing. No construction
shall occur prior to the approval'of the appropriate �lans and
specifications. All construction shall be �erformed a.n accordance with the
approved plans and specifications as determined by the City shall be deemed
to m�et the noise attenuation requirements af this Ordinance.
SECTION 11. Inspections
A. All construction or work for which a building permit is required shail
be subject to inspections bX the CitX. Snspecta.ons of nvise attenuation
work shall be performed during.the required building construction
inspectians�specified by the City of Mendota Heights code.
���y Field Testi:ng. When inspection indicates that the construction is not
�'' in accordance with the approved plans, the City may order such
1, 1. corrective action as may be necessaxy to meet the noise attenuation
___ .�
�t
0
requirements of this Ordinance. In lieu of performing such corrective
action, a building owner may submit a test repnrt based upan field tests
showing'com�l�ianae with the noise reduction level requirements contained
in the appliaable Noise Compatibility Table. The field .test shall be
performed in�accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials
Standard �E 336-84, �Part A1..�.:2.. Outside �to Inside (.Level .Reductionj .
0
SECTION:12. 'Severabilitv .
if anX part of this Ordinance is h�eld =to �:be �unconstitutional ..or
otherw.ise illegal, �the �remainder of this Ordinance :shal'1 .xema�in .in �force and
effect as iF such unenforceable provision.had�not been included herein.
e
0
�
. . ...
:'"� d�=-�=:.:
�� .
/
NO1SE COMPATIBILITY TABLE 1
� Noise WeDEVELOPM NTeANDnMAJ�R REDEVELOPMENTet Standards For
��. se IN NE
(The Noise �Reduction Level numbers .specify :for �each �type of 'l�nd use the
amount of interior sound level reduction necessary.for the use'to be
compatible in the applicable Aircraft Noise Zone). �
;i,,AlriiD USE TYPE -
I
.Leq (�8 0+)
�esidential
Single/multiplex with individual entrance
Multiplex/apartment with shar,ed entrance l
`��vbile Home �
Educational and Medical
�"l'�ols, churches, hospitals, nursing homes
Cultural. Entertainment� Recreational
AIRCRAFT
NOISE -ZONE
(75-80j (70--�5j (65-70j
.
INCO INCO
INCO 35
INCO INCO
. Y
:�.:� . �
INCO .INCO
INCO 25
30 Z5
INCO 25
=NCO
35 gp 25
25
.2 0 �
�Commercial Retail 35 30� 25 -CNST
offiae. . _ . . -
. . . � �� -
. • .. .
�ervices : . . . . ..� . i . . . � :>:.� .
� �, ..
�5� 30 :�. :25= ..,.: CNST
Transgortation-passenger� facilities :.=NCO . .. �3�_..,,,,:,.t,,,... 25 . : � .. 20
Transient Lodg.ing . . ..; . . ...._�.. �0.,_,_,�.��.,: �25`��-.w::t:CNST�.
other medical, health &.educational services' ��35 �� .25 4 CNST
other services _ . ..... _..._ . ... .....-. ... _.;,::.�.�. ._._. .
. . , . _:� -
. . _ . _ . .
_ __. . ..... _
.. 25 ;.. CNST _ CNST CNST
Tndu�trial Communications_ Ut. i1_itv : .. �'
Aaricultural Land. Water.Area. CNST CNST CNST �CNST
Resource Extraction . _ . .
� 1 These uses do not permit "in �the wall°' air-conditioning� units :in �. :-
� Zones I, II, and III.
. NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLE 2
Noise Reduction Level in d8A to Meet Standard for Use In
INFILL DEVEIAPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTIDN �R ADDITIONS TO EXSSTING STRUCTURES
(The Noise Reduction Level numbers specify for�each type of land use the
amount of interior sound level seduction necessary for the use.to be
compatible in the ` applicable :Aircraft: �Noise =Zonej -.� � . .. ..
LAND USE TYPE • �" � .�►IRCRAFT
NOISE ZONE
:I
�tesidential ' �q (80+j
S�ingle/multiplex with individual.entrance 2 40
Multiplex/apartment with shared entrance.2 40
Mobile iiome 2 ' 40
Educational and Medical
Schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes
�ultural, Entertainment, Recreational
O„�iice. Commercial Retail .
2I III =V
(75-80j (70-75) (65-70)
35 30 :25
35 30 25
35 30 � 25
40 �`� , 35
35 � 30
35 :30
30 25
�25 20:
• . 25 . CNST ., , �
Services . � •
Transportation-passenger facilities 35 30 25 ` CNST
Transient I,vdging 35 - :30 �5 2�0
Other medical, health & educational svcs. 35 �30 25 CNS� ,
Other services � 35 , 30 25 CNST -�� �- ""��
„ . ... . :....:� _ _.
� - �:: :;.:..�.....,
�ndustrial:. Communication,� Utilitv -=�_25 -CNST • CNST;,:.. CNST;.;..-i;;,_.�.
_. ° - : : _ ; . .,�: � -:: � �-:,: � .. •� � � .
Aqricultural �,and� �Water Area, y '� " � � :' � � �:..:.t�._;;'
Resocirce �xtractioii CNST CNST CNST 4 CNST
1 Does nat apply to remodelinc� or rehabilitatiori��of.��existing�:.residential-;: .
structures, or to constructi�on of appurtenances to-e.�cisting•residential'
structures. - _ . :.. .... . ._. ..._�_.. . ....� _.__. . •.. . .
2 These uses do not permit.;��in-the wall" air-conditioning units in`Zones
I, II. and III: _. . . � -�. .. � ,-., . .... . ,:. �
.. ... .... ..�, - _ . .- . -.
� .. .. - .::, :. .. ��
. .�� :
� ( � .� v
, ,
� )
SEc:TION 14. This ordinai�c� siaWl be in full force and effect from and after
its publication according
Adopted and ordained into-an�ordinance this nineteenth day of May, iss7.
� CITY � CCIUNCIL
� • CITY OF .°�tDOTA HEIGHT5
� By ��� ��• / v��',r-�—'�
- c ar es �E. : er enso 0
� Mayor �� .
,
ATTEST: .' � . �.
. ' � .
. . � '
K een .M. Swanson � . . � ^ � •
C, ;;� Clerk • � - � � -
, . � .. • ' � _
, , . , .. ,'';:: :r ,
o . , .
. .
� .;c�•�i-..
l� . .. . . .. .. ... . . . .. . . .
:, .. .. . . � . � . . .
r` ��
�
�
I1
Ii
� , � _ .�...� .
i (
�
�
: � � _.
AVIATION �
�
A/9/83 �'
' f . ( Laoat r �_____---_�Rosevillc Qi `
� � dalc� Faicon ________..I�__---____ ____
� `� ��, Hcighta��
. Figure D.1A MINNEAPOIIS ST. PAUL. INTERNATIONAI. AIRPORT
AIRCRAFT NOtSE ZONES AND FEOERAL NOISE STANDAROS
� e. � .
"� . \�. � 1 Saint Paul
i, � /t;'f�f,\
i �;• •' i���
� '� . O �
�C�'�M'� ..
,� �,�,��• �
I J�
6
_.-� � �_���
� � �-��
/G�'�..
etaom �op� ' J
/ ' ��
i� � �/
r�
j West 1
'Q 1 St. Paul j
i �
i�1` ��......�..
nU0\a' ``i
���'�nfishi�
11 _ a � .
� �•-��,���,,}�.� � � .
d�
� ` � /
� �/.
� '
e
Eagan '
1— 4 Noise Zones
South
St. Paul
Invcr Grove
Heights
�
�
�
� . ,
i Existi�g Runway '
� '
�. :
� Fede�al Noise Standa�d (avg. daily l.dnj
I
1 �
� Ldn 75
i �
�r---------------t- .. ..
� � ��� �dn 65
i
i
�r
� �
, � , , ,
., •
�
�
3• HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE
The following step-by-step process will help the user of this Guide to aehieve
appropriate structural noise reduction. A sample ealeulation following the
approaeh described �here is ineluded on page 23e �
STEP 1: LOCATE STRUCTURE IN NOISE ZONE
Check with the community to see if the building site is located within an
aireraft noise zone.� Maps of the various airport noise countours developed by
the Metropolitan Council are ineluded in Appendix D.
If the structure is located in Noise Zones I or II (at MSP or St. Paul
Airport), an analysis by a redognized acoustical specialist more detailed than
that provided by this Guide is reeommended. If the structure is located in
Noise Zones III or IV (at MSP or St. Paul Airport) or Noiae Zones A or B at
minor airports (Anoka County/Blaine, Lake Elmo, South St.�.Paul Munieipal,
Airlake, Flying Cloud and Crystal), this Guide may be used. .
STEP 2: DETERMINE IF USE IS ACCEPTABLE
IF building site is within an aireraft noise
what do Metropolitan Couneil guidelines say
shows aceeptable land uses.
STEP 3: DETERMINE NEEDED NOISE REDUCTION
zone, as determined in Step 1,
about aceeptable uses? Table 1
If the use is aeceptable, what is the required noise level reduction? Table 2
shows the required noise level reduction for eaeh aceeptable land use.
�
.,.
STEP 4: ESTABLISH DESIGN DETAILS
It is recommended that the principles listed below be ineorporated into the
design in its earliest phases to minimize exterior-interior sound
transmissian. Most of these prineiples are also consistent with the Minnesota
Energy Code. Alternate design features may be aecommodated but may require a
more extensive acoustical evaluation. . .
o Avoid large glass areas unless appropriate STC can be provided.
o Use solid-core exterior doors (in eombina,tion with,storm doors) where
possible.
o Use patio {glass) doors sparingly.
o Do not use large wooden-frame casement windows that cannot aceommodate the
weight of heavier glazing.
o Use skylights.sparingly (STC-rated if possible).
,
o Avoid roof-ceiling structures without insulated attics.
o Specify caulking and sealing of all through-the-wall penetrations.
.
o When using sound channels on interior skin, avoid bypassing ehannels by
attaching shelving and applianees directly to studs.
(For more suggestions on building praetices to minimize.noise impaets in a �
home, see U.S. Environmental Protection Ageneq, Quieting in the Home,
Washington, D.C.s 1978). —
STEP 5: COMPLETE STANDARD CHECKLIST
9
What type of acoustical information does the city require? A checklist of
information needed for an acoustical evaluation (outlined below) should be
completed and submitted to the local building inspector.
STANDARD�;CHECKLIST FOR ACOUSTICAL INFORMATION
1. Name, address and telephone number of building plan submitter, architect,
or other contaet person for questions or clarification of the plans and
information submitted.
2. Location of.the site on.the Noise Zone Map.
0
3• Set of plans and specifications with the following iaformation:
a. Floor plans and evaluations.
b. Information on the exterior envelope of the building;
1) Exterior wall systems, including materials, elevations, seetions, �
thermal or acoustical insulation used, R-values and STC values
where available (or.estimated).
�
2) Roof-ceiling systems including materials, elevations, sections,
thermal or acoustical insulation used, R-valuea and STC values
where available.(or estimated).
3) Window specifications and sehedule, .product(s) upon which window
specifications were based, R-values and STC values where
available (or estimated).
4) Exterior door specifications and sehedule, product(s) upon which
door specifications�were based, R-values and STC values where
available (or estimated).
c. Basement and floor-ceiling details if basement is vented or has
windows, doors, or ottier major penetrations through the exterior
walls.
d. Attic-space venting and information on thermal or acoustical
insulation not provided elsewhere. �
e. Heating/ventilating system (and fireplaces), especially details of
any penetration through exterior walls or roof.
f. Speeifications for airtight seals on windows and doors.
g. Specifications for caulking and treatment of penetrations .through
exterior walls. .
h. Room finish sehedules, especially iP earpet or other acoustically
absorbant materials are to be installed.
- i. Any other information that may be helpful in estimating!the overall
noise reduction of the exterior surface of the strueture.
4. A complete set of plans and specifications can be submitted in lieu of the
information outlined above in Number 3 if all relevant information is
inc luded�.
STEP 6: DETERMINE COMPONENT STC RATINGS
Estima.te STC ratings Y'rom the following tables for roof-ceiling, wall, window
construetion, glazing, and door assemblies. The STC rating is a single-number
rating based upon a standard laboratory procedure. The basis for this rating
is described in Appendix C. STC ratings will be used in Steps 8 through 10 to
determine whether the proposed windows are satisfaetory.
ROOF-CEILING CONSTRUCTION
Roof-ceiling construetion can generally be broken into two elasses: single- ��
joist systems and attic-space systems. The use of attie-space systems is
generally required in Minnesota because of the climate and the Minnesota
Energy Code. However, information on both systems is included here.
Venting of the attie spaee as required by the building code will reduce the
acoustical effectiveness of construction as noted in the table.
�
BAStC BUILDING ELEMENTS
Single-Joist Roof
)
Attic-space Systems
� � � �:�.
STC Ratings for Basic Roof-Ceiling Construction (Based upon EWR� data)
Attic space is assumed to be vented and insulated; a single-joist system
is assumed to be unvented.
/
Ceiling Material and STC Rating
Single-Joist Systems Attic-Space Systems
1/2" Gypsum Exposed 1/2" Gypsum Exposed
Roof Material Board Joist Board Joist
Wood shingles 45 . 3� 41 43
� Composition shingles 49 �0 �2 44
Clay or concrete tiles 57 45 �3 �5
Build-up roofing �9 3? �1 43
113" wood-sheet metal " 36 �1 _ �}3
� �External wall rating. S�e page 42, Appendix C.
WALL CONSTRUCTIONS
While a variety of wall constructions is available, the most common in new
homes is the 2 x 6 wood stud wall with exterior and interior finishes.
Until a laboratory or field measurement of this construction has been made,
it is assumed here that the basie wall with insulation provides an STC of
45 in the Minnesota elimate.
2 x 4 stud
,
r
{sTC 38 - 50)
2x6stud
�
(STC 40 - 52)
Concrete Block
..
.�,f
:•
:.
?�
(STC 51 - 56)
STC Values for Exterior Construction (Based upon EWR data)
� Interior Skin and STC Rating
1/2" 3/8" 2-i/2" 2-3/8„ �1/2" SB��1/2" SB
Exterior � Gypsum� Gypsum Gypsum Gypsum 1/2" GYP 3/8" GYP
2 x � Studs j
Alum. siding/1/2" wood 42 40 � 4� �5 42 �3
7/8" stueeo/1/2" wood 50 50� 50 50 51 50
1/2" wood siding 3$ 39 �3 45 41 42
3/�" wood siding 43 �2 �+2 �3 39 �0
2xbStt�ds
Alum. siding/1/2" Wood
7/8" stueCo/1/2" wood
1/2" wood siding
3/�4" wood siding
Other
��-i%2" brick veneer
6n CotlCrete �
8n eonerete
6" hollow conerete bloek
8" hollOw conCrete bloCk
6" bloek=w/ 1/2" stuceo
8" block w/ 1/2" stueco.
+�Gypsum - Gypsum board
�'�SB - Sound board _
44
52
�0
45
58
59
61
51
52
52
53
�12
52
41
4�F
57
60
63
52
54
53
55
46
52
45
�4
57
62
65
54
56
55 .
55
47
52
47
�5
57
61
64
5�
56 .
5'�F
56 �:
�4
53
�3
�1
58
61
6�
53
55
5��
56
�5
52
4�+
42
57
62
65
53
56
55
57
,
WINDOWS, GLAZING AND WINDOW ASSEMBLIES
It is important to note that measured STC values of glazing used in a
particular window will not tteceasarily be achieved by the window or window
assembly.
Double-Hung
(STC � �
26 - 29) �
i
Casement
,
(STC. /
2$ - 30) �
�
f
Estimated STC Ratings for Typical Windows
Picture window/double glazed
Pieture window/1" insulating glass
Double-hung with insulating glass
Double-hung with 3/4" insulating gl,ass
Double-hung with storm window
Acoustical
��
(STC `:
37 - 56)
�y •
STC
2g
3�
27 1
i
_29
35
Casement with insulating glass
Casement�with 1" insu2ating glass •
Casement �tith insulating higYt-perFormattee glass
Casement with 1" insulating high-performanee glass
Casement with iusulating high-performanee glass
and remoyable glass panel .
Casement with double-glazed laminated glass
Selected STC Ratin s for Aeoustical Windows
Sliding metal, 1/4", 1/4n laminated, 3/4" airspace
Sliding metal, 1/4n, 1/4"/2-1/4" airspace
Sliding metal, 3/8n, i/2", 2_1/2" airspaee
Sliding metal,,3/16„, 1/4n, 4-1/�" airspaae
Sliding metal, 1/4TM, 1/4" laminated, �1-1/4" airspace
Sliding metal, 1/2", 3/8", 8-1/2n airspaee
28
29
30
31
32
37
38
�+3
46
4$
�18 _.
56
C
�
;
;
�
i
� GLAZING ONLY
1
These STC values are for glazing only and do not necessarily represent the
window assemblies in which this glazing is used.
(� j
Monolithic STC �
1/4" . 31
1 /2" .. 36 .
Laminated
1/$"-0.030"-1/8'� 35
1��n�Da�3�„—�/8" 36
3/8��-0.03�"-1/4" � �0
Insulating �
'! /8"-1 /�4" AS*-1 /8" ` 28
1/4"-1/2TM AS*-1/�4n 35
i /4"-1 " AS� -i /�4" 37
3/16"—�" AS*-3/16n � � �+�
..
Laminated Insulating .
7/4�� Laminated-3/8" AS�'-3/16" 3?
1/�" Laminated-1/2" AS#-3/16" � 39 .
1/�" Laminated-1" AS�-3/16" �2
1/�" Laminated-2" AS�-3/16" �5
��2rr Laminated-2" AS�-3/16" 46 �
1/2"'Laminated-�" AS*-3/�6n �9
r
Double-Laminated Insulating � �
1/�" Laminated-1/2" AS�-1/4" Laminated �2
1/2" Laminated-1" AS*-1/4" Laminated 46 "
1/2" Laminated-�" AS*-1/2" Laminated 50
� .
�AS - air'space
Source: Acoustical Glazing Design Guide, Monsanto Chemical�Company
DOORS AND DOOR ASSEMBLIES .
Commonly used exterior doora for homes in the Minnesota climate are solid-
core, glazed and sliding.
So i�i d-core
�
cST� 2>>
w/storm
,,
:�
(STC 35)
French Patio
uul
, �l
�'� �
,� �
�'��J
�
(STC 26) (STC 28)
.
STC Ratings for Solid- and Hollow-Core Doors
Hollow-core wood with brass weather strip
French-style wood with 12 lights (single-glazing)
Solid-core wood with bras9 weather strip
. i
Hollow.steel with magnetic weather strip
Insulated steel with compression weather strip
Solid-core:wood with storm door
STC Ratings for poors with Glazin�
Sliding glass (3/16n glass)
Sliding patio with high-performanee glass
Swinging patia with 3/4" insulating glass
Patio w�.th 1/4" laminating glass and 1/2" airspace
Swinging patio doors with 3/�" insulating high-
performanee glass
STC
20
26
27 I
28
28
3�+
STC
26
28
28
30
30
�
,
,
STEP 7: DETERMINE WINDOW AND PATIO DOOR AREA
Galeulate the percentage of total exterior wall area (in square feet)
represented by windows and patio doors (glazed), or take this information from
the standard caleulation needed to meet the state energy code. This and the
STC values of walls and the ceiling-roof assembly will be used in Step 8 to
determine the required window STC. If a particular room has a relatively large
window or patio door area, the percentage of �indow and wall area should be
eomputed separately for this room (see Step 8). Skylights should be included
in the window area. _
STEP 8: DETERMINE REQUIRED WINDOW STC
Based upon the pereent of window area and patio doors determined in Step 7, use
Figures 1 through 6 to determine the window STC required to meet the
Metropolitan Couneil Land Use guidelines for particular noise zones.
These figures assume a door STC oF at least 26 (with no more than 1 percent of
exterior wall area) and a patio door with STC 28. Patio doors with STC less
than 28 are not recommended. These figur�s are applicable to Noise Zonea IV
and B. For sites located in Noise Zone A or III,_add 5 STC to the values
determined from these figures. The roof and wall STC elosest to that
determined in Step 6'should be used to select the correct figure. If values
are well outside those used in the figures, the,n outside assistapce may be
required.
A number of assumptions are used to generate these curves. Correction factors
to be applied to these curves are indicated in Step 9-
If a room is_determined to have a window area of 30 pereent or greater of its
exterior wall area, tnen an STC 35 window will be required.� If less than half
of this window area is to be operable, this area (as a percentage of the
exterior wall) should be entered in-to Figure 1 and the STC rat�ing for this
pereentage read from the figure. The operable portion of the window should
have an STC of at least this value in conjunetion with the 35 STC rating for
the fixed portion of the window.
Figures for Determining Required Window STC Ratings for Noise Zone IV
Figure 1: Roof-ceiling STC 40; wall STC 40
Figure 2: Roof-eeiling STC 40; wall STC 45
Figure 3: Roof-eeiling STC 40; wall STC 50
Figure 4: Roof-ceiling STC 45; wall STC �0
Figure 5: Roof-ceiling STC �5; wall STC 45
Figure 6: Roof-ceiling STC 45; wall STC 50
�i' �......... .
STEP 9t DETERMINE ADJUSTED WINDOW STC
The following corrections should be made to the basic window STC ratings
determined from Figures 1 through 6.
When there are more than two exterior walls in a room
Rooms without earpeting or soft furniture
Resilient mounting of interior gypsum wall
If door rating is less than 26 STC
+3 STc
+2 STC
-1 STC
+1 STG "
If patio door rating is 26 STC and area is over 5 percent +2 STC
,
STEP 10: SELECT WINDOWS TO MEET STC REQUIREMENT
Compare the STC ratings of the proposed windows as determined in Step 6 atid !
compare these w3th the required adjusted value determined in Step 9. If the �
proposed STC value is••insufFicient to meet the requ3rement, then one or a �;
combination of the following alternatives should be.considered: .
.
1. Seleet a window (Step 6) with the required STC value.
2. Reduce window area. .
3. Use walls, roof-eeiling assemblies or patio doors with higher STC values.
STEP 1i: PREPARE ACOUSTICAL REPORT
1
If the design can be shown to meet the noise level reduetion required, the
completed acoustical report should then be submitted to the local building
inspector. An example is shown in Table 3.
�
STEP 12: MEASURE BUILDING PERFORMANCE
Acoustic te9ting may be required under the eity ordinanee if the plans are �
changed following the acoustical review and no subsequent substantiation of the
building performance is provided to the building inspeetor.
Should�testing of the Finished strueture be necessary, the ASTM (American
Society for Testing Materials) E-336 standard for measuring exterior-interior
noise reduction should be followed. This test is described in the 1987 Annual
Book of ASTM Standards (see referenees).
.�
Use of this Guide does. not guarantee that a speciff.e noise level reduetion can
be met.
���v�No � o � i�i'�.v�m �s
�o�v+oowo ro or<�aer
p�"� '�s�`ya �° �p'N�ta X'N'wJ 7
' �! 1+ �' 1�-+ �' m a O 'G r�t C ta O
����'SK�� �1+ ���a"
C G e'r W W O e'r D 'C N i+ �
6rar ►�. �►'s �a� w �w
ce�r� u �p cN� a00r
"yf � w � O � W � � O
a �y �.o� a
� �
ef'
G G
w K
� �
a
"�!
G
�
fa
�
�
N .
t
O .
O
M C C
N� H � . � � � i�+ G C
6' m cc 3 � a c* io t
� m�D N 5' i�+^ '1 �C l9 � W S
(7 .O M ct N.7 c* 00 "
o. � µ-°s o e g ceo cGo r�- � �
m m e� ►°rm� c a's ��
m H co cr r�t er er ^7 <r µ a�
� �G N' N W L P�7 N � 6 � a
w m a o a e o � u
a w 'Q! e�t � O IB+� f�) e�* t FW-� f
m A er�'�7 5� m c e+ N `' t�'�
r�- 5'r� �mra ar wc
V 00 � tw�+ l�µ+ O 3�7 ^J � W l�D F
5' «e � m e w a ti w x
� o,n e �~'c m °i o �
7 epr a m W o e�* � w �►�'�,
8 m O i+ K N Q N f+� St u
v s� v W co ao c*••
ry 00 i 1~+ /9 �' (0 R� '!+
'o �µ wc�*��c. �y ry
O O W caD �� G G trit �
� "7 fe !-+ O N F-� !+� �
N 1+ M 7C '! S
'60 ' O t�o � c�r 00 a� �v
W h• W 'J ly+ '7 f�A
�'�' fo �D O O fD • 7C
a coo' �-yv �
w om mcm a
'3 �' C F'� O
� a� n. a w w
-s � `� � a w w
� m� �0°m �
m� � �* m � � w
� �r w fD o �
? D 1-+ V]
f0 11 f0 H
m 5 c�
c* O tn
S N
ro � � �
�rv
w o
r m
�
�
v ra s w r m o� oo v'
r t�n � � �r° � v 5� � o � �
w "K � � � a g ;<o �
A fy'� m H M G � fD O lC tD
N �y N L" c�r O a O 6 [~+7 � i~+ G O
��L7 ►�C+ i+ M W 5 !+ � � � (A (D � .
p �m �� y �G d j N� .
vo
KO� » O e�ti' W � 6 � � Q
» O 'i H Q H N ... Vt �r
w l?A 1�+ G'7 � O O- ."�!
A O W O. W F�+ 7 •
ro�$ro�' �aw 5� � .
r� � aw rt
am�'°w�'' mw �a
bx FG�+> W O I�+u UGJ. .� .
�t e�* 6��°s � a� W z> z
r�.o.� e�+� �� n rs H
W N W I�D 1P.+ t7 ID ^C9 ['�
O
cpt� G m ^J IC N cr H
{.+ � �« � i �
O 1 � H
� . rr �O s.
.. r a+ x
y t�
cr a
N
7
. �
w
c*
µ
0
a
w
r
�G' 'J yC
�t R f"'
µ � �
� O µ
" w w
.. cr
F+
a r+ o+ w o-+
tn f� � t� � o
H B fA B
�W �� =g�
O 1�+ e�r � fo C
�* % r� m •• r
v a w � e°'+�
t W t+ B W
a w w �
N t+ Q N
v N p~i �
n� a N
H n v
� v ti
"Y µ
t�+ 7
OV 1
� �
M �
O EI
� w
w �
� �
m w
w w
r m
w �0
m
w
0
N
H
n
r
g � µ
� "�7 F+ c�+� G N
1-� 1+ H
� m w � m
a x K i f)
c+r rc�
� µ� rox
a o a r r�
i � o ro �
o c `� a �
m° mcx+ v�w
'�7 t "A3 7 ••
cA* N -°� o
� W � 9
lD F~+ f�D
�
oro
c. c�o vw
N K ••
ww w
f0 w w
a t�n i°
1� �
'7 O
a p
fn
� a
?
m
0
'3
a
F�
w
' n
• ` m
W �
�a � � �
� � 7 F�+
F'� O
a o m �f
T 7 ry �
d { i f ~ H
O � 'µ7 �
O 1+
7 '�7 O a
1�D N h` �
5 7 O �
� � µ B
5 �
w a ov
� K ^J
O ID t'
t
F'�
t"�
?
c
c
�
i
c
w
m
�o
n
�
w
c
r
x
y
9
�
'c7
r
rc
ro
r
a
z
�
M
�
� H
. �
s
�
0
�
c�
0
�
ry
H 9
9 G7
fz7 M
�
w
�
H
a
x
a
n
x
'�i
H
z
O
H
y
R7
0
�
H
�
9
Z
m
�
H
t�7
ro
N
� � m
"3 ta G
fa 'S
N � CA
aa�v N
€i t�0 i+
� m �
rom ro
�
m ao
�
a5 �
� ��
D tD
c�c v
. N
a G°
ry a
W
�
� o
°* c
v
O t-�
G 8
w m
r�
(o W
C '�G
aw
�
cr w
� �
8 m
!0 1�'�
1+ �
� C
ct 6
lD 1+
m cr
s* c*
�O n.
� O
_tl
W (D
7 G
H
xa
10 !+
!� O�v
0
4 �
Wv
� n ?..
n c+
M "S
"7 "�
� •°s
'Ft v
lD �
0
e
w
r
Cf
�
m
C7'
c
K
1-'
d
t+
ty
00
F+
f�A '
b
co
n
e'r
'�1
B
w
�
ty] M Cy+7 ty+J [y7 Cy�7
tio ro �v ro �o ro
� oo -a rn
p • • . •
�� y M� f�+ 'J� ID �� c�r W c�i� W e�r
O'S �ryg l0 t�Af ��'µpS C� 9�+. 'F+� µB 8ry 6
f0 � pW µC� C�.7 O. fM+� A (D '«7 �y 'J'!+
H Q b II'J' Cµ.1 0� � t+ C f0 `J W � W
a o m aa xm a F«� � aac �e
wc oo rma a�em a�... m�
1-" N 00 !. t L" 4 m a fB '«'t er H
�C N� W� O Cm7 �� � N y ~ O S l9
A �C t!
•� tn a fa''a rm m�
� m Oµi W V G f��" "i i�+� h� Q W N
�W 'o � R `1 ta � m � O 'O � H
fc'.1 'QS � O Vf G� O F O � c�'r f/1 �
W� W A� a� ta o y f�e O CHi s��r
m cc 70 � m.-� a.a w cy o
e r co f+ A C) o «� �
� A� t��' t�f' 1+ O t�D 'J'µ iµ'� � -� �
� W tw-� 8 O W t t co •
� oc�oK �en c�i mw �
w
H ? 5 G� N y �
w a- � m
v a w � y aNa m
�o �' e Q° ^ot � m
W C U] S N '�7 ' m 8
5' 'Af Cy� � w cr m w
C O� F�+� b 1+ i�+� �
O~. 9'Jµ �� O. (CY W O �
�* 5 o s� cao °p' tn
5 N 7C 'N1 'd WF+ y Cy'�
O' N G W t'wr � 'mJ M
�c m r r m
� � a a o � w �
B �' � t�. O � � �
"U
� W t�0 � 7 O t a a
N 5 O O'7 O � �
a H�D '�Y � 6 G O
o m +K � µ '�i t°o
. y O. v 1�l G Ri G
O• 41 � y f0 r-
w
c. ►�- o m m o a
m � C � y Z
O O f+ Q� F�+ �' �
G G � � W M W
a a �a w m a W
Y� L7 O
. a.o y y �y ,� O
t�r µ cD C) `t Iw-� H
W� � y 6 W O
N � ��� er N ro
ii 1° s W °' �
.No c�'o N c 'o° •
d '7 to
a � c�o c�+ �
�w a y
'f f0 N lC
tD fD N
'J' � 6 (�p
N R • R
� �
a �
O. 1+
� �
m a
K 1�-�
� a
c
{�+ �
�
I S
N
N
<
�
a
Q. ..
�
N
[y9
tio
�
ao
e�'t' '�O
� �
a v�
m a
��a
��
� N
F�
m �
�
c
m
0
e
9
lC
c'
m
n
w
m
�
�
0
^J
b
w
ov
�
f0
v
w
o.
�
M �
r w
H t+1 d H t7
m o� '� c�o `D
W tµA !�+ N II
m a� w er m
�d Kmz
m�o mac(po
a i-� � T7 O.
m� o���'
�� am�
O � W N�(D
c n a
1° om�
W � ao
m �.5
'�'J � O
K C F•
W m W
mx ar
m a co
� W �
o rt -r
w �e c.
O G
Q Q
O rr
.'Y.G O
cr 5
N '�7
w' �
K �
o tn
w ti
O fG)
a cr
G
O �
C
tC
e�' H
O �
r �
\7 fC
� w
cr m
� � N
(�n t
r cµr
!+ .'�
c�* m
O, fA
c*
] �
OC 'CS
N fD
� �
N
O
N
r
tt
�
W
D
N
lD
a
o.
'J
M
m
(D
-a
�
a
G
O
K
1+
. 5
r
m
�
-� '�O
N
"Jw' O . "�f N� ta0 � O
GL 'S O tr N tr A
'�O �Hyp �ti m
lD F+ 01 F+
f� f0 Q' 'J eY 1�-� f/�
wµmw cw+wc
o�-�ro �a
07 " P� tr
'O ►m�b � W � p A
��'am ���
0� 1+ O tD N
r �e '� � ►psf w o
t�0 � K C f+ M~` N
f! O t'r 1-� O
yµ r w �c �e N
a r v ('� o
F'� fY Y. � (ry�0 � �
X w o a o m
o~y �-Fsm
N 6 � F� '1 6
w � � � m m
c*W c wv
o � c c�r�w
p1 N '3 � �+ '!
f+ N N m
a v r <
n.mo �'zm
� O W O H F+
� a a o a �
5' f+ fC ID (p
OC O 7 ¢ G V�
a�c�+ � a�
�� n m�v
1+- h'� l0 1�' 00
m =°.w °r �
. .. ..ti tb W
V
C (D � O
Q 2 t*
N N H 'i
c�r m m o
tt � N�
� a � fD �
� • G fC
ac�•� ep�r
C gf+
'µ7 N 5
� ro
B
'«1 • tl
f�A �
O
ti
5
m
0
Q
�
N
5
0
t+
[C
N
O
a
i�+�
�
n
A
r
9
3
r
m
d
�
y
H
G�
Z
a
r
t�
�
H
H
2
A
�
�
Metropolitan Air�ort Provisions
Zoning of Real Property
- Prevents MC from requiring local
government unit to preserve a new major
11I'j)O►t Slte. t ,r �
- MAC may not acquire property for a new
major airport.
- MAC can conduct long-range planning to,
make recommendations to legislature on need
for new airport facilities.
- Prohibited from constructing a new airport.
�� Prohibition of use of certain aircraft
- MAC shall, prohibit operation of non-stage
III aircraft after Dec. 31, 1999.
• Lonb Term Comprehensive Plans
- MAC shall implement MSP 2010 LTCP.
• Final EIS
- MAC not required to include new airport
environmental & technical analysis in iinal
EIS.
(� �� �� • Use of reliever airports
-' - MAC to develop plan to divert maximum
feasible number of general aviation operations
from MSP to relievers.
• Prohibition Concernin� Replacement
Passenger Ternvnal
- MA.0 prohibited from building West
Ternunal at MSP without lea slative approval.
• Construction of a Third Parallel Runway
- By Jan. 1, 1997, MAC must enter into a
contract with each MSP city indicating no
construction of a 3rd parallel without city
approval. An affected city is one where Ldn
60 would increase.
Environmental Impact Report
- MAC to prepare environmental effects and
costs of implementing MSP 2010 plan at 600,
650, 700; 750,OU0 annual operations.
f � ')
Annual Report to Legislature
- MAC to report by Feb. 15 each year.
Noise Mitigation
- MAC to spend a minimum of $185,000
from 1996 to 2002 for insulation and property
acquisition of public and private buildings in
noise impacted areas.
- MAC to develop future Ldn 65 noise
contours of new runway and reserve funding
in budget to complete noise mitigation.
- MAC, within 180 days, reports
recommendations to state. advisory council on
proposed mitigation activities and appropriate
funding levels for mitigation activities to the
Ieve160 Ldn level.
- Extends mitigation activities to level 65 Ldn.
• Ternunation �
Redefines termination of state advisory
council on metropolitan airpoYt planning.
Analysis of Aviation Services and Community
Development
- MAC to contract with University of
Minnesata for aviation services and facilities
analysis.
- Cost not to exceed $50,000.
Airport Noise Impact Relief
Urban revitalization and stabilization zones
- MSP zone established within 1 mile of 1996
Ldn 65 eligibility for urban homestead.ing
program in this zone, is limited to persons
buying and occupying a residence in the zone
after June 1, 1996.
Airport noise impact area - housing
replacement districts. (Tax increment)
- MSP area within 1 mile of 1996 Ldn 60
- Operation of districts requires MC approval
- Parcels in districts must be either:
1) vacant sites
2) contain vacant houses, or
3) contain structurally substandard
buildings.
C�
C�
� �
I I"_'Tli DAY�
TUESDAI', APRIL =. Iy9G
xb�s
Mr. StumPf m�vcd that thc torcgoin� rccommcndations and Conferencc Committcc Rcpon on
H.F. N�. 787 bc naw ad�ptcd, and that thc bill bc rcpassed as amended by thc Confcrcncc
COAItTIiUCC. TI'!C motion �rcvailed. Sc� thc recommcndat�ons and Conference Committce Rcport
wcrc adoptcd.
, ; ,r �
H:F. No. 787 was'rcad thc third timc, as amended by the Confcrence Committee, and placed on
it�s repassagc.
The question was taken on the repassage of the bill, as amended by the Conference Committee.
The roll was called, and there were yeas 63 and nays 3, as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Anderson Hanson Kroening
Bec}:man Hottinger Laidig
Belanger lanezich Langseeh
Berg .lohnson. D.E. Larson
Betzold Johnson. D.J. L.esewsl:i
Chandler Johnson, J.B. Limmer
Cohen Johnston Mar[y
Day Kelly Merriam
DiUe Kiscaden Metzen
Finn Kleis Mce, R.D.
Fischbach Knutson Mo»dale
Ftynn Kramer Morse
Frederickson Krentz Murphy
lveuville
Nova}:
Oliver
Olson
Ourada
Pappas
Pariseau
Piper
Pogemiller
Price
Ranum
Reichgott Junge
Riveness
Robereson
Runbeck
Sams
Samuelson
Scheevel
Solon
Spear
Stevens
Stumpf
?erwilliger
Vickerman
Ms. Berglin and Mr. Lessard voted in the negarive. '
So the bill, as amended by the Conference Committee, was repassed and its title was agreed to.
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE - CONTINUED
Mr. President
I have the honor to announce that the House has adopted the recommendation and repon of the
Conference Committee on House File No. 3012, and repassed said bill in accordance with the
report of the Committee, so adopted. �
House File No. 3012 is herewith transmitted to the Senate.
Edward A. Burdic}:, Chief Clerk, House of Representatives
Transmitted April 2, 1996
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON H.F. NO. 3012
A bill for an act relating to metropolitan government; modifying a certain levy Iimitation for the
metropolitan council; allowing for distribution offunds from the tax base revitalization account to
development authorities; authorizing the mevopolitan council to issue bonds; requiring a transfer
between certain accounts of the council; amending Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.167,
subdi��ision 2a; Minnesota Statutes 1995 Supplement seccions 473.I67, subdivisions 2 and 3; and
473.252; Laws 1989, chapcer 279, section 7, subdivision 6; repealing Minnesota Stacutes 1994,
section 473.167, subdivision 5; Minnesota Statutcs I995 Supplerncnt, section 473.167, subdivision
3a.
' April ?, 1996
Thc Hanorablc Irv Andcr�on
Spcakcr of thc Ncwsc of Rcprescntativcs
Thc Honorablc Allan H. S�car
f'rc�idcnt of thc S�na�c
C
C
0
8b7b
1(�UR�AL O� Tl l[i SEti��TE: ( 1 I:Tl I n�Y '
Wc, thc undcrsignc�l c:c�nf�crccs fc�r H.F. Nu. ?U13, rcpc�rt that wc havc a�rc�ci upon thc itcros; ;:. '
ciiti{�utc and recommend a� folic�ws:
That thc Scnatc rcccdc t'rom its amcndmcnts and that H.F. No. 301 ? bc furthcr amcndcd �:
' `' � follo��s:
Deletc everything after thc enacting ciausc �nd insen:
"ARTICLE 1
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION ';
Section I. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 471.59, is amended by addin` a subdivisior. '
I
read:
Subd. 13. [JOINT POWERS BOARD FOR HOUSING.] (a) For urposes of im�_ment;n� �!
federa court order or decree, two or more housin and re eve o meriz aut orn�es, or u.�;i, '
entit�es exercisin t e u ic hous�n owers o ousin an re evelo ment aut onaes, may 1�, ':
a o tion o a oint owers a reement that com ies w�c the rovis�ons o su rvisions 1 co _'�
estab is a oint boar or t e u ose o ac wrin an �nterest in, re a i itat�n , construct��_,•
owrun , or mana in ow-rent u ic ousin ocated m e metro o�tan area, as de ine :�;
with e era inancia assistance ',
sect�on 4 3.121, su division , an inance , in_w_o�e or in �art,,nf �aT P�ra �s e nursuant :c '
(1 be com osed of inembers desi nated b the eoverr
whic esta is e suc �oint oaz , ar► possess suc repres
the omt powers agreement;
(�) constitute a public body, corporate, and politic; and
(3) notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision l, reqt
anies to a omt owers a reement, and so�eiy �v< «��
rehabilitaung, construcung, owning, or mana�in ederallv
_ _ _ � .. _,....a�� �., _ri,—,r;Pc ennra�ne m secttons �
pazruci ant is an
r
be otherwise u
have the power
the Qower of e
_s �eci�fically �ro
exer-- cised by th
(b) If a hous
- " creauon o a �oi
be the aovernm
do so, in w �cfi
nited bv the terms or tne
to tax ursuant to secuon
rrunent omain. very ]c
vide which and under__v
and
event
in,� bodies of the govern�
�ntative anci—voung power
iring _c�o�_�mmonalitv of_pov�
purpose of acquirins an
�inanced low-rent ublic h�
.�� 1 to 4 9. 7 and,if
�, to 4 9.1 1, exce
emen� and (ii) a oii nt bo;
ion , or 4b�.1�7, nor sha
unit� t
interest �:. i
�usina, sh�i I
at east or.: �
--r-----
�t (i) as m��
rd shall nc '
it exercis. i
oard sna:
ein ma<< b�. (
development au�thon,_t.. �e_xists in a citv which intends, to artici ate in th I
ursuant to para�raph (a), such hous�ns and re evelorment aut onn� s a? ',
which nteTs into the �oint owers asreemenc unless it deternunes not t� '!
overnmental entitv which enters into the oint owers a reement ma
at citv which exercises t e low-rent public housin; powers o a housin
(c�1oint board shall not make an contract with the f_ ederal �overnmen� t for 1ow-rent ubli
housin , un ess the avernin bo_ or �bodies creating the_pari�ci atinu�authonty_in w_os
-g-- --� ---c---.-----� �_ --�� L --
iurisdict�on the housmg is locaced_ has, by. resolution, a roved the rov�sion of that low-rer
public housing. � � � �
(d) This subdivision does not a lv to anv housina and redevelo ment au[horitv, or ubli
enutv exercisin� t c powers ot a hous�n� an rc eve o�mcnt au� or�ty, �y�t m t e �uns �cuon or
countv hous��� rcdcvclopmcnt authonty which is acuvcl��carrv�r.��out a publ�c hous�n
pro�ram undcr Sccuon 5 ot thc Uni�cd Statcs Houxin�� Act ot 19i7. For purposcs otih
paras:raph_a countv housin�;7 and_rcdcrv�lopmcnt authority is consicicrcd to bc activcl cami�`-' p�
a public h�usm� �rogram undc:r S�ct�on 5 ot th�_Unitcd Statcs Hous�nk_Act of' 1937, � lt � 1 �`"'T
2UQ ar mc�rc public: housing unitl ccinstrurcccl un���Scction � ut thc Un�ced Statcs Housin;,� A�t <
1937, anc! (`_') has applicti tor public ho�sin� dcvcic�pmcnt funds undcr Scction 5 of the Unit�
Statcs Hc>usini� Act ��f 19:�7, clurin� thc thrcc� ycars imm�c3iatc(y prcc;c �n�; Januarv 1 �y9
C. .
1 I:TII i�Al') TULSDA�t'. AI'R1L �, lyyb K677
(c) Fnr Purpasc� of �ec:tions �69.0O1 to 469.(k7. "ri�v" mcan� thc citv in_which thc housing ''
it� with _respcct tc� which thc joint hc��rd was _crcatcd arc locai.c�d� and '�ovcrnin�_ hc�dy`'_or
. _. _ . .._ , ..._.- --. _ - - —
� ecivcrn�ng_hodv crcating thc author.�tvymcanx thc cciunc:�l_ of such c�t�-. .
Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1995 Supplement, section 473.167, subdivision 2, is amended to
resd: . ,� �
Subd. 2. [LOANS FOR ACQUISITION.] (a) The council may make )oans to counties, towns,
and statutory and home rule chaner cities withm the meuopolitan area for the purchase of property
within the right-of-way of a state trunk highway shown on an o�cial map adopted pursuant to
section 394.361 or 462.359 or far the, purchase of propeny within the proposed r�ght-of-way of a
principal or intermediate azterial highway designated by the council as a pan of the metropolitan
highway svstem plan and approved by the council pursuant to subdivision l. The loans shall be
made by the council, from the fund established pursuant to this subdivision, for purchases
appro��ed by the council. The loans shall bear no interest.
� The council shall make loans only:
(l ) to acceIerate the acquisition of primarily undeveloped property when there is a reasonable
probability that the propeny will increase in value before highway construcuon, and to update an
expired environmencal impact statement on a project for which the right-of-way is being
purchased; . �
(2) to avert the irruninent conversion or the granting of approvals whieh would allow the
conversion of property to uses which would jeopardize its availabiliry for highway construction; e�
(3) to advance planning and environmental activities on highest priority major metropolitan
river crossing pro�ects, under the transportation development guide chapterlpolicy plan; or K
(4 to take advanta e of o en market o ortunities when develo ed ro ezties become
a.ra�tahlP .,r �aiP nrnvirler� ati narnes mvolved are asreeable to the sale and funds are available.
--� The council shall not make loans for the purchase of propem� at a price which exceeds the
fair market value of the property or whach includes the costs of relocaung or moving persons or
property. The eminent domain process may be used to settle differences of opinion as to_ fair
rnarket value, provided all parties agree to the process.
(d) A private property owner may elect to receive the purchase price either in a lump sum or in
noi more than four annual installmenu without interest on the deferred installments. If the
purchase agreement provides for installment payments, the council shall make the loan in
installments corresponding to those in the purchase agreement The reci�ient of an acquisition loan
shall convey the property for the construcnon of the fiighway at the same price which the recipient
paid for the properry. The price may include the casts of preparing environmental documenu that
were required for the acquisition and that were paid for with money that the recipient received
from the loan fund. Upon notification bv the counci] that the plan to construct the highway has
been abandoned or the anticipated location of the highway changed, the recipient shall sell the
property at market value in accordance v��ith the procedures required for the disposition of the
property. All renu and other money received because of the recipient's ownership of the property
and all proceeds from the conveyance or sale af the property shall be paid to the council. If a
recipient is not permitted to include in the conveyance pnce the cost of preparing environmental
documents that were required for the acquisicion, then the recipient is not required to repay the
council an amount equal to 40 percent of the money received from the loan fund and spent in
preparing the environmental documents.
fc) The proceeds of the tax authorizcd by subdivision 3 and distributed to the right-of-way
acquisition loan fund pursuant to subdivision 3a, paragraph (a), all moncy paid to thc councii by
rccipicnts of loans, and all interest on thc proceeds and payments shall bc ma�ntaincd as a scparate
tund. For administration of thc loan program, thc counc�l may expcnd from thc fund cach ycar an
amount no �rcatcr than thrcc perccnt ot thc amount of thc procccdti distributcd to thc right-of-way
(� ��isiticm )oan fund pursuant to subdivision 3a, para�raph ta), i'�r that ycar.
C
�_
(
2{G7;{
10LR\ �L Or THE SENATE
a
(1 12TH DAY
Scc. 3. Minncsota Statutcs (9U-l. scction 473.167, subciivision ?a, is amcndcd to rcad:
Subd. �a. �HARDSHIP ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION.j (a) Thc council may makc
hardship l�ans to acquiring authorities wi[hin the metropolitan area to purchase homestead
�'p,roperty locatcd in a proposed stacc trunk highway right-of-way ar pro�ect, and to provide
relocation assis�ance. Acqu�rinb authorities are authortzed to accept thc loans and to acquire the
property. Except as provided in this subdivision, the loans shall be made as prov�ded in
subdivision 2. Loans shall be in the amount of the a�r�i�e� fair market value of the homescead
property plus relocation costs and less salvage value. Before construction of the highway begins,
the acquiring authority shall convey the property to the cammissioner of [ransportat�on at the same
price it paid, plus relocacion costs and less its salvage value. Acquisition and assistanee under this
subdivision must conform to sections 1 17.50 to 117.56.
(b) The council may make hardship loans only when:
( l) the owner of affected homestead property requests acquisition and relocation assistance
from an acquiring authority;
(2) federal or state financial participation is not available;
(3) the owner is unable to sell the homestead property at its appraised market value because the
property is located in a proposed state trunk highway right-of-way or project as indicated on an
official map or plat adopted under section 16fl.085, 394.361, or 462.359;
�(4) the a�sa�-e€ council agrees to and approves the fair market value of the homestead
property . '', whi�h approval sha11 not be
unreasonably withheld; and .
(5) the owner of the homestead property is burdened by circumstances that constitute a
hazdship, such as catasrrophic medical expenses; a transfer of the homestead owner by the owner's
employer to a distant site of employment; or inability of the owner to maintain the property due to
physical or mental disability or the permanent deparnzre of children from the homestead.
(c) For purposes of this subdivision, the following terms have the meanings given them.
(1) "Acquiring authority" means counties, towns, and statutory and home rule charter cities in
the met�apolitan area.
(2) "Homestead property" means a single-family dwelling occupied by the owner, and the
surrounding land, noc exceeding a total of ten acres.
(3) "Salvage value" means the probable sale price of the dweiling and other property that is
severable from the land if offered for sale on the condition that it be removed from the land at the
buyer's expense, allowing a reasonable time to find a buyer with I:nowledge of the possible uses
of the properry, including separate use of serviceable components and scrap when there is no ocher
reasonable prospect of sale.
Sec. 4. •Minnesota Statutes 1995 Supplement, section 473.167, subdivision 3, is amended to
read:
Subd. 3. [TAX.] The councii may levy a tax on all taxable property in the met�opolitan area, as
defined in sec[ion 473.121, to provide funds for loans made pursuant to subdivisions 2 and 2a and
€er-t#�e-�a�--b�"'-r �^�afiet�-a .�, o_�.�;; �• �,� •�• � a �.,�..�:..,, �
under--section -473:2� 1. This tax for the right-ot-wa}� acquisition loan fund and-the-tax-• base
r-e�i�a�io�-ac-ee�t�t shall be certified by the council, levied, and coliected in the manner
provided by scccion 473.13. The tax shall,bc in addi�ion to that authorized by section �73.2-�9`and
anv other law and shall not affcct the amount or race of caxcs which may be levied by the council
or any mctropolitan :��cncy or local govcrnmcncal unit. Thc amount of thc levy shall bc as
dctermincd and ccrtiti�d by thc council:_providcd chat thc pfoperty tax levicd by thc metrapolitan
council for thc ri�ht-of-way acquisi�ion loan fund and the tax base revitalization account shall not
c:ccccd the -following-amount-tor-�the-years--specit'ied:
�
• R6'I9
I I�TII DAl'� TUESUAl'. APRIL �. lyyh
ta)-for taxe� payable in-1y2;�;. the pmduct-of 5/IUU�f•one miil��multiplied--by-the-total-asses�ed•
valuation <�t'all �.axabie•prci�ny located within-tMe•mctro�l+tanarca-a4•adjusted-t�wt�e-prov+�;inns
af-�vI inne�ota Statute4-1 yBG: -::ecti�ns -��?fi4: =���3:13:�-:sutxl� v�si�n-�a;-�ar����-5:49:
(-tri-for-ta�es-pa�yable-'tn-���39-eaccept-as-prov-ided-i��;ec-t�or�-���49: subd�isie�the-preduc-t
e���et�opa���r�-c-otst�c-��:5-proper�+-ca�c-le�-Y-lir�n�tat�►-�c��t#�e-�gt�t-�'-�'a�� ���r
' _."._ tf1QQ.`inlnr.aa�7APF�-HAC�f�i'�i�'sa. ���T''�Y����,�r .��i ._'"..L.1�
C•"Y_� �wa...j.......���_. �_�.�-��-j,, •n �� ��"�.��.'�{'��.y,,
``''•'^«, n��t�ye�[�}�p.�''�. �+'Ln.�.'(�'7CT�a+' `••c.�fzac'cl�vr__" "L��'Q.'�j
'�'Yp'Y'�� a`� • '�'T'C��Tv j"..' '�
,�,� ��lnT�ai1 �,[11VI]7'2me 1 t � .
(�}--��.... i `,,
����e.a-r�; the product of (l) the meunde�lth3s
council's propeny tax levy �atie�--€er ' �a 1997 multiplied by
subdivision for �#e taxes payable in �-9S$-de�e���" `'
inde�or markee metro� olitan area fo9 the urrenttta�ce payable yearld d d by thetotap m ke
locaced within th . p
valuation of all taxable property located within the metropolitan azea for taxes payable in
1997.
For the purpose of de�ermifund the meu�opolitan council's property tax levy limitation for the
right-of-way acquisinon loan
'' ,"total market valuation" means the total market valuation of all taxable
property wzthin the metropolitan area without valuation adjustments for fiscal disparities (chapter
473F�. ta�c increment financing (sections 469.174 to 469.179), and high voltage transmission lines
(section 273.425).
Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 1995 Supplement, section 473.252, is amended to read:
473:?52 [TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT.)
Subdivision 1. [DEFINITION•]oFooWn PP�u.�iPating in the local hous ng incennves pro�ram
staxutory or home ru] tY
under section 4'73.254, or a county in the metropolitan area.
Subd. 1 a. @EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.] "Develo ment authorin�" means a statutor,�or
L.._...e �,�o �harrPr �;rv_ housin� and redevelopment authori
r.� economic deveiopment authont��,
ana a port auu,w,�y.
Subd. 2. [SOURCES OF FCTNDS•] The council shall credit to the tax b�ssubdiv�ionu�
account within the fund the amount, if an}�, provided for under �. �
����}�—(-�� 4, and the amount, if any, distributed to the council under section 473F.08,
subdivis�on 3b.
Subd. 3. [DISnTRIBU lit��i s O de elospment authoriues for thetcleanup of pollutedeiand in the
make grants P
metrop�litan area. ci aun t m n c��a o ytaTheu council shall� P escr be�anay provide hed g�ant
project in a parci P g. p
appl�cation form to munic�palities. The council must consider the probabiliry of funding rom
other sources w�hen mal:ing grants under this seccion.
(b)(� ) The 1eRisla a�le tocc r videagrantst� on only s ome of„thecapplicant�mun cipalnt��iesa d
the council v. �11 hc P
applicati�ns forc�hinhest�rrct arnf ind public benefit eforathe p binc cost incurredh thatnencour �e
that providc th
cornmercial and indu�trial dcvelopment that wili lead to thc prescrvation or growth of living-wagc
j�bt and that cnhancc thc tax basc of thc recipicnt municipal�ty.
(2) ln rnakin�- �-rants. thc council shall establish re�ular application dcadlines in which grams
C�
�
1OUI2Nl�i. O(� T! IE� SL"ti��TF: � I I �TFI DAl
1t��{U _ .
wili hr awardcd I�rc�m th� availahlc monc:v in thc accaunt. tC lhc cc�un�il prc�vidcs tc�c applicatic�,�
cvcic• af Icss than six-mcmth intcrvals, thc c:�uncii must rescrvc ai Icast -tU perccnt ��t' thc r��cipt:
c�f thc acc:c�unt for a ycar Cor applicaiiun cJcacilincs thuc occur in thc ticcc�nd half ofthc ycar. If thc
.; applicaiians fo,r s:rants excccc! thc availablc funds for an application cycic, no morc thsn onc-hal:
`'� of' thc tunds may bc �ranccd to projccts in a statutory or home rulc chartcr city and no morc thar.
threc-quarcers of the funds may be gran[ed [o projeccs located in cities of the first clas�.
projec costsnthat qual fy torsa gran runde�r sect ons 1 16J.5� 1�0 116J 5�7,m�[ch requirement f'or
Subd. 4. [TAX.) The council ma levv a tax on all caxable ro ert in the metro olitan area, a�
de ined �n section 47 .121, to rov� e un s or t e tax base revua �zat�on account �n thc
mecro o itan ivab e communities und. T is tax or t e tax base revicalizat►on accounc shall be
certi �ed b t e counc� , ev�ed, and co lecte in the manner rovided b�• secc�on 473.13. e ta:s
sha e�n a it�on to t at aut orize bv section 473.24 and an other aw and sha noc a ect the
amount or rate o ta7ces wh�ch mav e lev�e y t e council or any metropo ican a�enc�,`or oca,
anvernmental unit.
The amount of the ]ev
lev�'e � t�ie meuo,-o��f'�it
rp o uct o(1 t e metro�
47�1 �7, su rvision 3, f
c an es e ua to e tata
area for e current taxes
ocat wi n e metro
For the u ose of de
tax ase revit izanon a�
shall be as determined and
� council or the tax ase
itan counci 's ev or the
� taxes paYab�e in 1 7 Iril
an azea for taxes
inin¢ the met�op
area
tax increment
Subd. 5. [STATE REVIEW.] The co
liriutat on under this section to the counei
its ro ose ro ertv tax lev to the con
hP rnmmtsSl�TteT O revenue s a 1 annu�
m
y is not transmitted to
ct�rrent mar�t valuat�
d b the council, rovided that the tax ',
ization accounc s a_ not exceed t e'
tax base revitaiiza�avr
i u �e b(2) an �n e
a e propertv ocate �
total market valuation
� e in 1 7.
,
council's propert� tax
iori means t e totai �
ut valuation ad ustmer
s 4 .174 to 4 9.1i
r of revenue shall. cet
;t 1 o t e evvyear•
o revenue Gv Senterr
zne whet er the �ro �e
:ounci �or Tevy follov
a-bv is secuon. The
. if current inTormanon reg
ssi no erin a am� manner
.ount under sect�on
ar maz et valuation '�
�in the metro o xtan !
a taxa e property '
i
limitation for the '
et va uation o�a7l I�
or iscal is'�'anues
an igh vo tage
. ��
the council:s levy
:ounci must cenit�� .
1 o t e levy veaz.
tax or the tax base
� t e a o�tion o its
�erminauon must be
� market vaT luauon
�nrr,m�ssioner mav
Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 1995 Supplement, section 473.704, subdivision ] 8, is amended to
read:
Subd. 1$. The commission may establish a research program to evaluate the effects of control
programs on other fauna. The purpose of the program is to �dentify the types and magnitude of the
adverse effects of the control program on fish and wildlife and associated food chain inverrebrates.
The commission may conduct research through conuacts with qualified outside researchers. �
budget; �until LDeeernbe�-3 }—�-945-:
Sec. 7. [ISSUANCE OF BONDS OR NOTES FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.)
Subdivision I. [BOI�tDS; LOANS.� Thc council may borrow money or bv resolution authorizc
the issuancc of aencral obiigation bonds or noccs for the acquisition of qualifiying rca! propert��
located within Henne in count which [hc council determ�ncs is neces�For the propc�tiec'�
north-souc runway ex�ansi�n ot thc Nt�nnca—polis-St. Paul Intcrnauonal A�rport. For purpc�scs ol
this subdivision, "qualifying rcal property" mcan� a!! or pan of (1) thc mct ccntcr propcny �s
idcntificd in Minncsota Statutcs, sccuon -173.�51, subdivision 1''�or (3) proQcrty locatcd in th �t Ih
—,-----�---. .. "
incrcmcnt tinanc�n�istr�ct dcsigna�cci as��tax�incrcmcnt� f�nancin� d�stn�t tio.�� 1-G
hc>unciarics c:crosistin�; �f� a 31.9 acrc parc:cl knc��vn as lhc Kclly prc�perty.
, 1�1'_Tll U/1Y�
TUL'SDAY. At'Rii.'_'. I�)yh '
Subd. 2. (P12UCLUURL.) Thc h�nds c�r ncxcs sh�l) hc sald, ititiucd, and ticcurcd in thr manncr
�-- - -
pmvidcd in Minnc�ota Stawtcti,_chaptcr 475, and thr counril tihnl�l ha`vc thc samc powcr�_anc3
--r-- --
duucs as a munic�pality �xsu�nL hondx undcr thai�tcr._cxcc�hat.no cicct�on shail bc rc wrcd
and'thc nct �dcht� limitati�ns in MinnCsota Statutcs, chaptcr -�75, shall not apply to such bonds or
noica. Thc obligaiions.arc noi a dcbi o�` thc statc or anv athcr mun c„pality or pol�ucal subd�v�sion
---�-- -------
��ith�n thc mcanin� oi an�v dcbt �limitation or rcquircmcni�pcnain�ng to those cntities. hc bonds or
notes mav be sold at an � rice and at a ubl�c or rivate sale as determined bv the coune�l. The
obl�gat�ons mav be secured bv taxes Icvie w�thout lim�tation o rate or amount upon all ta�cable
nrnnerrv �n the metropolitan arca.
Subd. 3. (COST SHARING: DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY.] The, council may enter into
reements with the metropolitan airpons commission anv municipality in the metropolitan area,
ic ot private; to
counc>> uetermines is
��rpon. Ir tne counc�
on 473.129, su d�vi
the airoor� the re
�y proposed expans�on or tne M�nne
�s real propertZpursuant to subdiv�sion ?
wh�ch i� t subsequently detemunes is not
ert � shall be sold in accordance w�tl
e o the real property shall e_used or
or notes issued pursuant to su
Sec. 8. [BLOOMINGTON; TAX INCREMENT.]
Subdivision 1. [PUBLIC PURPOSE.j In 1985, the �ort auth
ablishe a redevelo ment tax increment inancin distnct desi
tnct o. 1-G w�th boundanes consistmg o a 31.9 acre parc
:ated at the northeast uadrant o 24th Avenue and East Ol�
>oirun�ton wzth t e intenuon o inancin� certam redeve opme�
rovements within the ai on south indusmal develo ment �
rveyed to the Mall o America Company by the port au o
�suant ta the restated contract dated Ma 31, 1988, b and b
-t auth�n o the ci o ]oomin ton. and a 1 o Amenca
t the Mall o America Comnanv commence construcnon o a
Amenca ro ect on tne site no �ater tnan �w,
commence consuucnon o a subsequent phase o
ownership of the property rever�s to the port
Minneapolis-St Paul Internat�onal Airport long-.te;
a north-south runway to guarantv future operauon
of the cit�, of B
d as tax increme�
�own as the Ke]
ako e—e I2oad in
;u, inc u mQ seli
et The Kelly pT
� the cit� .o��f.. .Bl
:n ttie cit��-- of Bl
anv. subiect to tt
� raui
�nesota
councii s
service or
a a safe, etticient manner.
commission w�ll be requ
was
to
to
faeilitate consuucaon of the north-south runwav.
Subd. 2. [AUTHORIZATION.] The port authoritv of the city of Bloomington may amend the
redevelopment tax increment financing district consisting of the Kellv property so that it shall,
instead, consist of the met center property as identified in Minnesota Statutes, section 473.551,
suodivision 1�, upan satisfaction of the followin condit�ons precedent:
( l), sale_of the met center propeny from they meuopolitan council or_a metr�olitan agency to
the�Mall of America Com �an � or an entitv com �risin at least one artner of the Mall of Amenca ,
Com_pany_or an a._il�ate o_such partner; �
(2) appro��al by the city of Bloomington, port authority_of the.citv of Bloomington, and MaI1 of
America Companv of amendments to the restated contract dated Mav�31, 1988, wh�ch transfer
development rights and contract obligations from the Kelly propert�' to the met center property,
(3) approval by the Minncsota cnvironmcntal qualit�� board of an em�ironmental impact
statcmcnt for thc mct ccntcr Prc�cny and �prova) by thc Minncsota�oliution control a�cncv of
an indircct tiourcc permit i��r thc mct ccntcr praperty;
t4) aPprc�val hy thc city c�f Blc�omin��tan and Pon authority of thc city of Blc�omingtan oi� a final
cicvcic�pmcnt plan 1��r thc mct ccntcr prc>�crty;
( )(5 ) an a`�rccmcnt hv thc ci�-ncr-drvcl<,Pcr <�f' thc mct ccntcr �rc>Pcrty, in n f�rm �atisl'actc�rv tc�
C
JOURti:�t. O(' Tl ll: SEti.�TIi ( I I'TI f DAY
;{h�'_ , .
th� c:itv c>t' fil<�omington anci.Port_auth�rity uf thc city ol' Blc�omin�_tcm. t�� dcdicatc t�� th� city of
Blcioniin��tcin land �for� ri��his-ot-wav :in�1 othcr public: imprc�vcmcn�� rcquircd ti�r a�;ubscqucnt
phasc �c�t� thc Mal) vf� Amcrica�iroj.c;ct un thc mct ccntcr pro�cm�;
�� 1 (6) th_ c mctroPolitan airports c��mmission and [hc Mall of_ Anicrica Co�any havic either:
(i) encercd into a purchase agrcemcnt for the sale of the Kellv �property; or
(ii) a reed, in writin to pay compensacion based on the existin� development rich�s for the use
of the Ke ly propertv in an amount not to cxceed thc totul cost ot ACqU1riAc the met center
ei
�
an a reement by the Mal) of Ameri
�he ciry o Bloomin�ton or port authc
Kell ro ertv ursuant to Minr
ment to the comprehensave plan o i
�quirements of Minnesota Statuces
cation of the plan to provide for th
riginal net tax capacity of the distr
:s. section 469.177, subdivision l, i
endment of the geo�raphic boi
�acity of the district shal] not cat
�uld not otherwise be applicable
Subd. 3. [SPECIAL RtJLES.]
m the tax increment financing d
which tax increments, assessme
;remenu from e dismet consi
der pazaeraph (d). The provis�or
er the conditions precedent in
nrovements on the met center s�
0
noc to sue or claim an
v o Bloom�n�ton arisin
s, seccions 3 0.061 to
; ciiy o► D►oomin�ton relanng to th
section 469.175
substitution of le
e in existence Trom its ongina
ndaries of the district and recezt
;e the application to the district of
to the district
_ �
a) Tax inerement may not be ca
smct on the met center ro ertv a
,rc_ and other revenues rom the_
or.tnis aragrapn ap � �
su division 2 are satis �
�. No increments ma , in
met center site a er Dec
The provisions of Minnesota :
ins dismct on the met center
273.1399, do not
ons
out or rezonin�
�b74, or an
Kelly property.
� not apply to
horized hereb}�.
Nith Minnesota
undaries of the
eatit�n and the
�ri�ina] net tax
the
on
tax
to the tax increment
c Tne overnina bod af the citv of Bloomin ton must elect the method of com utation of tax
increment s eci ied in Minnesota Statutes, section 4 9.177, subdivision 3, ara�ra h(b), in the tax
increment financing dismct on the met center property.
(d Tax increments, assessments, and other revenues derived from the tax increment district on
the met center ro e and an accumulated tax increments from the tax increment mancm�
district on the Kellv propertv ma�be used to finance onlv the following_
^(1 amounts that the city or port authority must�ay. to re�mburse or otherwise pay the developer
for pub ic improvements because of counced value resultin� from �ni' vestment in properry at the
met center site under section 9.2(OS of the restated concract �or purc.iiaac aa�u r^"_ .rP
. . _,_----
redevelopment� land bv and among the ci[y of Bloomin�ton the port authority o�the cic� o
Bloomington^and the Mall of America Compan , daced May 31, 1988,
(2) interest and other financing costs the city or pon authority pays_or incurs on, but that are noc
includcd �n, the amouncs under clause (1):
(3) in[erest and principal on qualified bonds to [he extcnt that other available revenues and
incrcmcnts trom other sourccs that arc plcdgcd to pay thc bonds arc insufficicnt [n dctc m in�
whcthcr othcr availablc revcnucs or incrcmcncs arc �nsufficicnt, spcnding of thcsc r__c __��n�c5 for
only thc follnwing itcros rcducc availablc rcvcnucs (all othcr rcvcnucs arc dccmec� to bc availablc):
(A) paymcnt ol� cicbt scrvicc on bonds anci obli�a�icros issucd and solcl b�Corc March � I. 1996;
C_
• tt(ih:�
� 1 I2Tl-i [�Al•� TUGSUAI'. At'Rti� �. 19Ut� `
(B) pavmcnts undcr bindinc writtcn contracts.in_cff'cct on March :�1._ 1996__i�_.Which thc
incrcmcnt� or �c�thcr rcvcnucs arc�d�cd`an�
(C) rca��rrc�blcTadministraci��c cxpcnscs, subicct to thc limits undcr Minne�ota Statutcs, section
46g.176, subd'iv�sion 3: and
� � .� �
(4) reasonable admini5trat�; L d under clau es�(I aand (2Mmust bc usedt oedeterm�nes he9l�m�t
to 46�.178. The amounts er
or ad� m�nistrat�ve ex enses under M�nnesota Stawtes, secuon 469.176, subd�v�s�on .
For the u oses of ara ra h(d), " ualified bonds" means:
(i) bonds or other obli ati d�strict cons snn � ob the Kellv hrol em9are� ledsed� anaments from
the tax �ncrement inanc�n
(iil bonds or other obli of hesdebt serv� e b avmsents secu ed bv)the increments and are secured
increase the resent value
bv a led e o the same increments and ocher revenues as secured b�� e under•he formula in
For u oses of deternvnins the ualafv�ne ratio ercent for counted valu
secuon 9.2(0� ° eha rer ore n add taon to all the investment at otherls tes co ered b�ethe rest t d
dccmcd t� b
s�te is
contract .
Subd. 4. [ACQLTISITION OF PROPERTY.J No�
metro olitan a' ons commission is authorized to
cnns�stent wxth the public purpose set orth in this aw
or
ire or
ma �
easei
or e;
necess �.
'� � Subd. 5. (LIMITATION ON USE OF TAX INCREMENT.] If the
Bloomin on amends the redevelo ment tax increment financin dist
to the met center ro ert �, the owner of the met center ro em shall
on ublic reimbursement or uali ed u ic im rovements as set fo
restated contract date May 31, 1988, by and betwe,e�n the citY o Bl�
_ � ,..�_„ ,. ., �,r... „ . _........r. ..
law to the contrarv, the
nplished b an excna
or other me od to
of eriunent domair.
of the city of
Sec. 9. [TRANSFER.]
Subdivision 1. Notwithstandinh of-wa�ac urut on loan fund to the�lannine�ass stanansger a
ortion a the roceeds �n the n
and loan ro am rovided inrM inand oantatro ramCauthonzed i Minnesotae St�atuttes,asect on
for thc lannin assistanc�
473.8 7, the metro olitacil under�M nne�sota Statutes sec�o�'OOO.g31thbefo�eCt � epeal By 2008
bonds issued bv the coun
the council shall re av a�n amount transferred fram the ri ht-of-wa ac uis�t�on loan fund usin
the proceeds of the ta____x author�zed �n Minnesoca Starutes, section 473.249.
Subd. 2. In 1997, the council must use �200,000 of any_ amount transferred in subdivision l to
make� rants of not more than �20,000 each to mun�ci alities for technical ass�staPnce to � a�'e a
growth management strategy� as pan o the municipal�ty's comprehensive lan. A rowth
mana�ement straceav mav�includc r�nci les such as:� reservat� jn'of undevelo ed o. en s acenf of
agricultural production. re�ocal��dencit scand n ommun'itv interacc on; hes� al �nt Ta�ho sive
ne�ehborhoods to establish �
nacural opcn spaces, nei�hborhoods, and othcr distr��cstablishmentrof a� chascnath l n��t eslu�da
bcst valuc of all land in thc_communit��: and th_c ___..
rcasonablc, i cnt�l dcvclopmcnt oi'thc commun�ty. Mun�cipalit�s�may apply for thc grants in
panncrship �;ith_ �thcr_municiPalitic� or_with a c�un�v• Fc�r thc u oscs of this subdivision
i�"mun�c�pai�tv mcans any c�ty or toti�n �in thc mctrc�politan arca as dcfincd ln Minncsota Statu�cs,
_. scctic�n 473.1'_' 1 •
�.
C
0
86�-t
1nURN�\L OP Tf IE SENA'I'L"
Sc:c. IU. �ACQUISITION OF TNE MET CENTER PRUPERTY.)
Nutwithstanciin� anvthin� to th_c cc�ntr�_ in scctions 7 t� 1�_ �hc _authi�rity w,rantc:d to ac uirc
r�e�.al Aropercy shal� not au[horiic ac u�c.L s►t�on ot th� �Cntcr proncrtv, as dct�ncd in M�nnesoca
' ' S�Zatutcs, sccnon 473.551, subdivision I?, bv cmment domain.
Sec. 1 l. [ST. LOUIS PARK TIF; STATE AID OFFSET.J
Subdivision 1. [COMPUTATION OF AID OFFSET.) If the Citv of St. Louis Park elects to
extend the dura[ion of the Excelsior Boulevard Redevelo ment Pro ect under Laws 19 5, cha tes
2 4, art�cle 5, sec[ion 3, and i the c�tv recetves a arant under section 473.253 tor use w�thin the
ro ect, the stace aid reduct�on re uired b Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1782, subdivis�on 1.
must be computed as provide in th�s section The reduction in stace tax lncrement inancin� a�d
�,nrir r Mmnecnta Scatuces. secaon 273.1399 must be computed using 70 percent of the captured
_••--• - --------
tax capacicy o the _ istrict or the years in wh�ch t e extension
Subd. 2. [EFFECTTVE DATE.] This section is effective the dav followinQ final enactment
without local approval.
Sec. 12. (REPEALER.j
(a) Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473 167, subdivision S, is repe�.led.
�b) Minnesota Statutes 1995 Supplement, section 473.167 subdivision 3a, is rePealed•
Sec. 13. [APPLICATION.) ,
Sections 2 to 7, 9, and 12 apply in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota. Hennepin, Ramsey,
Sec. 14. [EFFECTIVE DATE.] �
Sections 4 and 5, subdivisions 2, 4, and 5, are effective for.taxes levied� in� o
1998 and subse uent ears. �ecUon u, �a �a =_ ,� , j� �-_���•.� _-
Section 8 is effective u on com liance bv the overnin� bodv of the ort autt
of loonuneton and the overnins bod o the ci o Bloomin�ton with Mii
secdon 5.021, subdivision 2.
The remainder of this article is effective the day following iinal enactment
ARTICLE 2
METROPOLITAN TRANSP�RTATION INVESTMENT ACT
in
of the citv
a Starutes,
Section 1. [473.1465] [TR.ANSPORTATION POLICY.]
Subdivision l. [DEFINTTION.] For the purposes of this section and section 473.1466
"commuting area" means the metropolitan area and counties outs�de the metropolitan area in
� � o„t ,., r�,P .,,Prrr,n�l�tan area
Subd. 2. [REVISED TR.ANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN.] The metropolitan council shall
adoo� appropriate public comment, a revised transporcation pol�cv plan that:
(1) is consistent with state law and council policy;
(2) identifies and summarizes issues concernina commutin� into and out of the seven-countv
area rom thc commuting arca;
(3) integraces and maximizes che efficiencies and effectiveness of all modes of cransponation in
thc retion; and �
(4) rcticcts and docs not cxcccd currcnt availablc resourccs. :
C
I 1'?T! t UA1' �
' TUESDAI'. Ai'RIL'_. �`1y��
8685
� �..__. P_...__....I? _.._._____.-------- -- - -
Thc counc:il shall ad�t thc rcvisccl trans onatinn olicv lan hv Ucccmbcr 31. 19 6•
Suhd. 3. �i'ROJECT ivALUATION.J A�an ot' dcvcl�pinc thc rcvisc�nsponation �licy
plan, thc�cc�uncit shall cvaluatc all �r�oscd and pcndin trans onaiion pro�cctti that are su6�cct to
. cc�uncil�rc��icw and repon io thc le��slaturc thc results of c�unc�l's cvaluauon.
Scc. 2. (473.1466] (PER
ln 1997 and cvcrv four
selected throu�h a re uq est
che commutmQ area s trans
NCE AUDIT.]
�reafter_ thC counCil
commutin area's abilitv to meet tne re
opdc and eo�le. evaluate uture trenas
anci make recommendauons or improvi
;s conducted nationw��
is a. w��' e e o;
's needs for ef ect�vc
I theu impacts on the
he sZs.em. Thc ��e�.
even� two years there
� svstem's operation
de for an inde e� naen
; to d– o a �r�ormance �
�ance aud�t must evaTi
nd e �eient trans orc�
���on's transpanatton
;�ance auait must reco
ter, the council rnust e
� Telanonshia to the i
cP� � ra��.�s751 �TRAI�?SIT FOR LTVABLE COMMUNITIES•]
(]) interrelatine development or redevelopment and transit;
(2) interrelatin� affordable housing and employment �rowth areas: �
.,.., ,_,_�__ :_.:.....:�., ,,,,,� „�P rhat leads to more compact development or redevelopment;
4 coordinatin school trans ortarion and ublic uansit service;
�' _� (�� �plemenuns recommendations of the vansit redesi�n plan: or
6) otherwise romotins the oals of the meu�o olitan livable communities act.
cP� 4._ Minnesota Starutes 1994, section 473.388, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
)
Subd. 7. [SERVICE INCENTIVE.] A
n nercent .of available local transit fund:
serve
centers
service
transit serv�ce_s
ai least rve per
:ceive an additional
serv�ce increased its
iem�er co –mmumues
vear, rov� e t e service
-----
service that is receivm the maximum amount of available local transit fun s mav rec
two percent over the maximum amounc set in subd�vis�on 4 i it increases iu ndership a
in this subdivis�on. The addinonal funding received under this subdivisian may be reser
r�lacement transit servace for future use. .
Sec. 5. Minnesota Statvtes I995 Supplement, section 473.391, is amended to read:
473 39l [ROUTE PLANNING AND SCHEDULING.j
trans�t
: un to
Subdivision 1. [CONT,RAn n S' andh schedulingmservi � s�ant anYh eonfi$ura ion �of new� or
governments for rou�e p �
reconfiguration of existin€ trat�sit services and routes, including route plann�ng and scheduling
neccssary for thc tcst markctin� program. thc service biddin�, program, and the interstate highway
dcscribed gcncrally as Icgislativc routcs Nos. 1 U and l07 bctw�ccn 1-494 and thc Hawthornc
intcrchsngc in thc cit�� al' Minncapolis, commonly known as I-39�.
Subd. 2. (ROUTE L'LIMtNATION: SE ducc ECR.EDU'CTcONtj�� tran�t routcsa,can. idcr:
making_a_cictcrminacion �c� climinatc or__. _. —
( 1) thc Icvc) c>f suhtiicl�• Pcr Passcn��cr .�n cach routc:
/
�
t
0
Kh:tt, JnURvAI.OF T! tE SEN��TI: � i i'_TI t DAY
(�) th� availability and proximity c�f altrrnativc transit rout�ti; ancl
(:i� thc..percenta�c c�f transit d�cncl�nt ridcrs, inclucling_.vouth. cld�rly� low-incomc, and
disabl�ci ridcrs cur'rcntTusint_ cach routc. + ~` 4 �
�'� Scc. 6. Laws 1995, chaptcr 265, articic l, scction �1, is amcndcd to resd:
Scc. 4. [EFFECTIVE DATE.j
. Sections 1[0 3 are effective upon metropolitan council approval of plans presented by the
commissioner to:
• (1) construct one additional lane on each roadway of I-?94 at or near iGs interchange with Penn
Avenue;
(2) preserve the existence of an additional lane eastbound between Penn Avenue and the
Dunwoody Boulevard exit;
(3) erect noise barriers adjacent to the westbound roadway of the hi�hway continuously
between �virth Pazkway and1D��^���� the east end of bridge No. 27770, and on the eastbound
roadway of the highway continuously between Madeira Avenue and Wu-th Parkway. and extend
the existing noise barriers easterly of France Avenue, all with the consent of all affected owners of
commercial. property;
(4) adopt 2 goal of achieving an average occupanc}� rate on the ni�hway of 1:6 persons pe�
vehicle by 2000, and implement a five-yeaz program in cooperation with the council intended to
achieve that goal by, among other means, significantly increasing the i�se of high-occupancy lanes
on the highway and the use of other roadways; .
(5) develop and implement, joindy with the commissioner of public safety, a plan and program
for (i) enforcement of speed limits and other tr�c laws and high-occupancy.lane restrictions and
the minimizing of late merging of traffic onto the eastbound highway, and (ii) demonstration of
increased information and education through changeable message signs and the use of elecffonic
detecrion to identify and warn traffic law violators; and
(6) ensure that the highway ' ' and HOV lanes are ground or milled
, , ., ..,.e��..,.�
between June Avenue in Golden Valley and the highway s intersection with ^��""
�:-��,,.�.� *T^ �� ;� *�';^���� the west end of the brid e a roach to brid e No. 27770 or has a
bituminous suzface on the inix use anes wittun e same lirruts.
Sec. 7. [BEST PRACTICES REPORT.]
The le islative audit cominission is re uested to direct the leaislative auditor to pre are and
subirut to the le islature December 1, 199 , a best ractices re on on coo erative and
inte rated transit services that are e ective and e icient To the extent available, the re ort must
include in ormaaon on best .practices or re�ular route public uansit service transit that l�nks �obs
and housina integrating pnvate transit services wtth public transit services, andintesraun sg chool
cransoorration with nubl�c transit services.
Sec. 8. (METROPOLITAN TR.ANSIT REDESIGN.)
Subdivision 1. [1997 PLAN.J The metro�olitan council shall�resent to the 1997 le ig slature a
status re on on the im lementation lan for �m roved transit service for the re ion. The lan must
be developed_w�th the assistance o an advisory_ committee estabiished _by the council. At a
m'inimum, the plan must: —� �~.----- --��-------�- -� ---- � — -�
(1) u[ilize communitv-based transit services;
(�) cncoura�c local initiativcs for improvcc3 transit scrvicc;
(3) encoura�c coordina[ion of� various �ublic transit services and private, For-prof_,__ i___t, and
nonprofit transit ticrviccs that d<� not rcccivc transit sutisidics fmm thc cc�unc:il;
C�
`TUL•SDAI', nPRIL'_'. �yy�
;' (4) c�tablish Pcrformancc mcasures that funhcr transit goal� for thc rcgion that_arc consistcm
with�and �roniatc.th�olicic� of'thc Rcgional .Blucprint _and thc mctropolitan li��ablc commun�ucs
act:�and .
- (5) includc an operatin� and capital budgct proicction for thc bicnnium endinR Junc 30, 1999.
Subd. 2. (ADVISO�Y COMMITTEE.� The council shall utilize an adviso committee to
ass�st'— the council in re arin the lan re u�red undcr sub ivis�on ]. Members o t e comm�ttee
must rcpresent local communit ��nterests. Members o the adv�so ���comm^ttPe sha 1 serve w�thout
(. )
npensation but mav be reimnursea oy �►�G 4�u,���, a�
Sec. 9. [STUDY; PAYING FOR NEW GROWTH.j
The metropolitan council shall identifv_means of.inst
�oc�ated with the new development, includin�, but nc
�nmmodace the new development and the present val
in� that new develoF
l�znited to, the coscs
� o serv�ces prov�de
� '�hrnarv i _ 1997.
s the costs
tructure to
�c e'�'ntit� s
Sec. l�. [PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO BE MET.]
Subdivision 1. [METROPOLITAN COUNCIL.] If the metr, opolitan council is app
�ne�rom the eneral fund for ublic transit o eration�or�iscal veaz 19�7, 1.5 ercen
.de available to the council a ter une 1, 1997, onl i the commissioner o mance de
.t metro oiitan counc�l transit o erations assen ers er revenue hour roducnvzrv has ;
a one-vear enod between the effecave date o this section and June ], 1 97. An
-,.P„t �t,a � P made ava�lable to the council er June 1, 1 97, only �i the commis
�reased in a one- ear enod etween the effective date or u�is sec:uu�, a��u �u..� ., _.--•
Subd. 2. [DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOI3.j If the commissioner of transportation is
ro riated mone from the trunl: hi hwav fund in 1996 for state road construcaon, �ve ercent
ati he made availa le to the commiss�oner a er une 1, 1997, only i the commissioner o
—� L a d a
s
costs m a
1{r l� lI/�
Sec. 11. [PERFORMANCE AUDIT; DEADLINE.j
The metropolitan council's first performance audit
...._.�...a .,, .�,o �o.,, ��,,,TP h., i�Pcemher 15. 1997.
.rease as
secno d
�m[iPr SeCtlOri Z. II1llSt
Sec. 12. [APPLICATION.]
Sections 1 to 6, 8, 9, l 0, subdivision J, and 11 a Iv to the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota,
Hennepin Ramse�� Scott, and W ashington.
Sec. l3. [EF�'ECTIVE DATE.]
This arcicle is effeetive the day followin �nal enactment.
ARTICLE 3
METROPOLITAN AIRPORT PROVISIONS
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes I994, section 473.155, is amended by adding a subdivision to
rcad:
Subd. 5. (ZONiNG OF REAL PROPERTY. J Thc council shall not requirc a loca] govcrnmcnt
unit io continuc a current usc or to adopt a comprchcnsive plan dcsignation or am� chan�c in
zoning, zonin� variancc, or canditional usc in ordcr t� cnsurc or prescrvc thc ava►labilit}� of land
for a ncw ma or ai ort.
.--�- - -- -.. _..�.--- rn_._
Scc. Z. Minnctiota Statutc� 1y94, scction �73•605, eubdivision 2, is amcndcd to rcad:
g�x� JOURtiAL Ot� THE SGNATG ( 1 I'_TFi DAY
Subci. ?. It may acyuirc by Icax�, purchasc. git't, dcvitic, or �c�ncicmnatic�n prc�rccdings all
ncccssary ri��ht, titl�, anci in�crest in and ta lands anci persc�nal property rcyuirc�! t'�r airpons and all
c�thcr rcal c�r personal property rcquircd for thc purp�scs contcmplatcd by scc[ions -t73.6U1 ta
,.�'73.679, within thc mctrop�litan arca. pay thcrctor out of funds obta�ncd as h�rc:insftcr provic3cd.
�nd hold and disposc of thc samc, subj�ct to thc timitations and conditions hercin prescribed
except that che corporation may not acquire by anv means iands or personal property for a maior
new a��r o_rc. T�tle to any sueh propeny acqu�red by condemnat�on or purchase shall bein ree
s�mple, absolute, unqualified in any way, but any such real or personal property or interest therein
otherwise acquired may be so acquired or accepted subject to any condiaon which may be
imposed thereon by the grantor or donor and agreed to by the corporation, not inconsistent with
the proper use of the propeny by the corporation Eor the purposes herein provided. Any properties.
real or personal, acquired, owned, leased, controlled, used, and occupied by the corporat�on for
any of the purpases of sections 473.601 to 473.679. are declared to be acquired, owned, leased,
convolled, used, and occupied for public, governmental, a»d municipal purposes, and shall be
exempt from taxation by the state or any of its political subdivisions. Nothing contained in
sections 473.601 to 473.679, shall be construed a..� exempcing propercies, real or personal, leased
from the metropolitan airports commission to a tenant or lessee who is a private person,
association, or corporation from assessments or taxes.
Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.60$, subdivision 6, is amended to read:
Subd. 6. It may construct and equip new airports, with all powers of acquisition set out in
subdivision 2, pay therefor out of the funds obtained as hereinafrer provided, and hold, maintain,
operate, �regulate, pol�ce, and dispose of them or any of them as hereinafter provided. It may not
construct, e ui , or. ac uire land for a ma'or new a' ort to re lace the exisun Minnea o is-St
Paul nternational ai ort, but it ma conduct acuvities necess to do lona-ran e anmn to
make recammendauons ta the le is ature on the need for new airport acilities.
. Sec. 4. Minnesota Starutes 1994, section 473.608, subdivision 16, is amended to read:
develo in�
Subd. 16. It may generally carry on the business of acquirin�, establishing, p�.
extending, maintaining, operaung, and managing aiiports, with all powers incident thereto exce t
it is expressly prohibited from exercisins these powers for the purpose of future construction of a
.tor new auporc.
Sec. 5. Minnesota Sta.tutes 1994, section 473.60&, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 23. [PROHIBITION OF USE OF CfiRTAIN AIRCRAFT.� After complyin with the
b icanon and ublic comment re uiremencs of United States Code, tit e 4, section 47524(6)
_ . . . • _______ _L.. ,,....,,,���,.,., �hati nrnhihit nneratl0ri 3t
Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes
the
not
noise
1994, section 473.608, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
ubd. 24. [IMPLEMENTATION OF LONG-TER'►vt PLAN.j The c
Vt�n aen oolis-SG Paul International airport year 2010 lona-term co
shall in
ve olan.
Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.608, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 25. (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.� Thc corporation shall not
be required to_Provide environmental or technical analysis of the ne�� airport alternative�in the
dual crack planninQ process tinal �environmental impact statement.
Scc. 8. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.608, is amcndcd by addin� a subdivision to rcad:
Subd. ?6. [USE OF RELTEVER AIRPORTS.) Thc cc��ration shall cievclop and im Icmcnt a
plan to divctt the maximum fcasiblc numbcr of gcncral avtiauon c�perationti from MinncaQolis-St
Paul Intcrnational airport to thosc airports dcsis�ns�cc.i by [hc_fcdcral aviacion administran� S
cclicvcr sirports f�or Nlinncapolis-S� P•aul Ir►�crnaiiona! airpori. �
Scc. �). Minncsota Stcuutcs 1�)9�l. ticctic�n �t73.hO;i, is amcncicii hy aciclin� a subdivisic�n to rcad:
C�
C� _
I I�TIi UA1'�
TUL-SDA1'. nPRll.'_'. 1996
8689
`' Subd. '_'7. �PRUHIBITION CONCERNING REPLACL-MENT PASSL-NG�R TERMINAL.)
� Thc c�r�ic�raticm is prahihitcd fmm con�tructini a rcplaccmcntpatiscngcr tcrminal nn thc.wcst sidc
of Mi�incapaliti-SG 1'aul lntcrriational airrcin ��ithout Icgisla�ivc a rpp oval• � �^
� Scc. :10. Minncsota ��tatutcs 1994, scction 473.605, is amcndcd by addin� a subdivision to read:
Subd. 28. �CONSTRUCTION OF A THIRD PARALLEL RUNWAY.J (a) The corporation
must enter �nto a contract with each affected cit � that rovides the co oration ma not construct a
th�rd parallel runwav at thc Minneapol�s- t aul �nternat�onal airport w�thout the a ected c�ty's
ag�roval The corporat�on mu�t enter into the contracts by January 1, 1997.
(b) If a contract with a citv as re4uired by this subdivision is not executed by January 1, 1997,
as a result o the co�r orat�o�n �
no�se man�at�on in the affec[e
recent yeaz in which an ex
(c) A contract entered into
contract must provide thir�ic p�
thP
ar
ig to act in gooa ra�cn.
ity �sincreased b�Y�..IO
id�ture was 'made fo
a_ �ca�t and the corpora
benefic� rv ri ng u on
party�Iiene ��ciary ri�
tract or authorizes or �
1 ercenc o the amount s ent in the most
_no�se rrlitigat�on �n t e a ected c�ty.
ion under this subdivision creates and the
beha o the a ected ro ert owners in
ts apply onlv i a state aw c an�es,
na�rhe_ corooranon to construct a third
d An "affected ci " is an cit that would ex erience an increase in the azea located within
L,dn noise contour as a result o operauons usin� e third parallel runway.
Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.614, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 2a. [ENVIROI�TMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.j Notwithstandin the rovisions of
>divi on 2, the commission shall re are a re ort documenun e env�ronmental e ects o
;-- ,�„�lects included in the MSP 201 long-term comprehiens�ve plan Envuonmental e ects oL and
( ) costs ass
, __: measures
t0
Sec. 12. Minnesota Starutes 1994, section 473.621, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 1 b. [ANNUAL REPORT TO LEGISLATURE.j The corporation shall repoit to the
IeQis ature by February_ _ 15 of each year conceming op�erauons at Minneapohs-St Panl
at
aviation and their eTiect an
__
in
id capacity at ttie airport. The repon must
as it relates to operations at Wayne county
mevo olitan ai ort in Detroit The re ort must com aze tne numoGr v, a���j���� ��� •�-•.�.••�•.-�
and the number o aircraft operations with the I 93 metropol�tan airport commiss�on baseline
forecasts of total �assengers and total a reraft operations.
Sec. 13. Minnesota Statutes 1994, sectian 473.661, subdivision 4, is amended to read:
Subd. 4. [NOISE MITIGATION.] (a) According to the schedule in paragraph (b), commission
funds must be dedicated (1) to supplement the implementation of correct�ve land use management
measures approved by the Fedcral Aviation Adm�nistration as part of the commission's Federal
Aviation Regulations, part ) 50 noise compatibiiity program, and (2) for soundproo�nS and
accompanying air conditioning of residences, schools, and other public buildings when there is a
demonstrated nccd bccausc of aircraft noise, regardless of the location of thc building to bc
saundproofcd, nr any combination c�f thc thrce.
(b) Thc noisc miti�_ation prc�grarn dcscribed in para�raph (a) shall bc fundcd hy thc commission
from whatcvcr sourcc c�f (undti accordin� to thc follawin� schedulc:
',_� In I99i, an amc�unt cyual t<� 2U perccnt of thc �asscngcr facilicics churg.cs rcvcnuc am�unt
hud�etcd by thc cnmmission 1'c�r 1 y93;
1
86�)t)
1OURti:�I.OI� Tf�i[i SENl�TI:
� I 12TF1 DAY
In 1�)y-1. an amount cyua! t<� 3t) p�rr�nt c�f thc passcn�cr f'aciticics char�ca rcvcnuc �mount
bucJ��ct�ci ry thc commission f'or 19y-�:
In 199�, an amount cqual to 35 perrcnt c�l' thc passen�;cr faciliticti char�,cs rcvcnuc amounc
'`�f�d�_ct�d by che commission for 199�: and
In 1996, an amount equal to 40 percen[ of �he passenger facilicics charges revenue amount
bud�eted by the commiss�on for 1996.
(c) From 1996 to 2
of funds ror tnsulatr
publ�clv owned bu�lc
�r pertv acquisit�on, 1
noise im acted area.
M nneapo is and two
(d� Before the �co
ai ort, the commissii
o � the metropolitan a
ro ram to miti ate r
5 Ldn contour but v�
is in o erauon. asec
the commission shall sp�
�d accompanvina a�r cc
where there is a demc
;d to res�dences. schools_
l�aon, the co oratton s
�ols m�Ri h ield that are
:c;nn constructs a new
no tess than $185
ition�nQ of reside
nsulace
it Minneapoli:
f noise thac H'i
the new runw
area that are l�
�r as establishe
00 from an�
schools. an
ilt in vanous pares
d shai� deve�lo �a
i outsi e the 1996
:r e new runwav
its annual budgec.
....,.... --------
una noise r uti a ol n measures are eom ie�eu, �� all=�u==� �•
noise miti atg ion Uro�ram in the new y irnpacted areas.
(e The commission's capital improvement projects, program, t and plan must reflect the
requirements of this section. As part of the. comin�ssion's report to the legislature under section
473.621, subdivision la, the commission must provide a description and the status of each noise
mitigation project implemented under this secuon. .
(-d-} (�f Within 69 180 days of submitting the commission's and the meuopolitan council's
report and recommendauons on major airport planning to the legislarure as required by seccion
473.618, the commission, with the assistance of.its sound abatement advisory committee, shall
make a recommendation to the' �'�� s�te advisory counci3 on metropolitan airport plannins
regarding �roposed mitisation acnvicies and appropnace funding levels for �e�se iruugation
acuvities at Muineapolis-St Paul International Airport and in the neighboring communities. The
recommendation shall examine miti ation measures� to thPr60 men anon and cotmmen�t�to the
on rneQo ����, � .,.� .�....... ...._- --
___ _.... ., e.. r.> rPrnmmen 1IlOI7 15 SU II71LT i0
Sec. 14. Laws 1989, chapter 279, section 7, subdivision 6, is amended to read:
Subd. 6. [TERMINATION.] The advisory council ceases to exist when the actions required b��
� �• � �.a•..;�;�r �,�„�,c-t-�er}-4 this aracle of this cha ter of Laws 1996, sections 13 and 15,
are completed. .
Sec. 15. [ANALYSIS�OF AVIATION SERVICES AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.j
The metropolitan airports commission shall contract with the University
prepare an aviation service_ and tacil�ties analysis. The commission shall utiliz
available source co av the Universitv of Nlinnesota an aQreed�amount not to ex
the e ormance of the analysis. The analysis shall include:
of Minnes� o
e tunds trom an
ceed $50.000 or
._ .�._ --
(1) a description of various types and levels of aviacion service and an examinacion of che
relationshi �between aviation service levels and the lcvel of commercial and industrial act_____��!Cti' ln
th� statc; and �
(2) an examination of the relationship bctwecn �vailsblc lcveis of aviation scrvicc �snd thc
rclocation of cornmcrcial Snd industrial cntcrpriscs.to chc statc.
Thc commission shall_rc_pc�rt thc results ot thc: analvsis to thc_statc_advisc�rv council on
mctropo�isn airport planriing nu latcr than�Fcbruary lU, l�)97. Thc counc'il��tihall�rcvicw�thc rcpon
f )
0
I i �TI 1 I�AY � TUL'SDA1'..APRIL '_'. I y96 ��y I
and analvsis and commcnt tc� thc Ic�isluturc within 6Q_dav� aftcr thc resul�s of thc analvsis arc
_..___---�--�------ — � --- — -- - — - ---�
rc�oncd�to thc counc�l.
Scc. 16. jREPEALER.j
Ntinnesota Statu�cl,s 1994 sections 473 1551, subdivision ?� 473.636• and 473.637, are repealcd.
Sec, l7. [EFFECTIVE DATE.]
is article is effective the
enactment and applies to the counties of
ARTICLE 4
AIRPORT NOISE IMPACT RELIEF
Section l. Laws 1995, chapter 255, anicle 3, section 2, subdivision ], is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. .[URBAN REVITALIZATIOI`' AND STABILIZATION ZONES.] (a By
September 1, 1995, the metropolican council shall designate one or more urban revitalizat�on and
stabilization zones in the metropolitan area, as defined .in section 473.121, subdivision 2. The
designated zones must contain no more than 1,000 single family hornes in total. In designating
urban revitalization and stabilization zones, the council shall choose areas that are in transition
toward blight and poverty. The council shall use indicators that evidence increasing neighborhood
distress such as decliriing residential property values, declining resident incomes, declining rates
of owner-occupancy, and other indicators of blight and poverty in detemuning which areas are�to
be urban revitalization and stabilization zones.
,
as
An urban revitalization and stabilizauon zone is created in
aze m wnoie or m�par� toca
ul nternanonal Au�port, or
ide�nts�the zone created i
;ion 2 is lirruted to persons
in the zone
arter �une i, tyyo.
Sec. 2. Laws 1995, chapter 255, arcicle 3, section 2, subdivision 4, is amended to read:
Subd. 4. [EXPIl2ATION.� Initial applications for the urban homesteading program in the zones
desi�nated under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), shall not be accepted after July 1, 1997.
Sec. 3. [AIRPORT NOISE IMPACT AREAS; HOUSING REPLACEMENT DISTRICTS;
DEFINITIONS.]
Subdivision 1. [AIRPORT NOISE IMPACT AREA.] "Ai ort noise im act area" means a
�graphic azea composed entirelv of parcels that are in whole or in pan located wittun the 199
�dn.contour surroundinQ the Minneapolis-St Paul internat�onal Airpon., or w�thin one rrule of
the boundaries of the 1 yy6 6ULdn contour.
Subd. 2. [AUTHORITY.] For each city that contains an
the authoricv as defined in M�nnesota Statutes, section�
bv the Qovernin� �body of the city to be the authority for
noise impact area, "authority" is
:ubd�vision �, t at is designated
�s of sections 3 to 6.
Subd. 3. [CAPTURED NET TAX CAPACITY.� "Captured net tax capacity" means the amount
by_which the current net tax capacity in a housin� replacement district exceeds the ongmal net tax
capaciti��� includin� thc valuc of propertv normall�l taxable as personal property bv reason of its
location on or over property owned by a tax-exempt ent�ty.
Suhd. 4. (ORIGINAL NE? TAX CAPACITY.) "Original nct tax caoacit>>" mcans the net tax
capacity of all taxabic rcal propcny within a housin� rcplaccmcnt d'istrict as ccnified by thc
commissioncr of rcvenuc far thc previous asscssment year Iess the net tax capac�ty attr�butablc to
cxisting im�rovcmcnts,_pro��idcd. that thc rcqucst by thc authoritv for ccnification of a ncw
housing rcplaccmcnt distnct has bccn madc to thc county audi�or hy Junc 30. Thc �riginal nct tax
caPacity ai hou�in� rcplaccmcnt distrirts fc�r which rcqucsts arc filcd aftcr Junc 30 ha� an �ri�inal
�:
10URVr\i Ul� TI IE SEIvATL
v
� I 1?TH UAY
$b�)'_ • . .
nct tax capac►ty basc:d cm th� c:urrcnt ass�stimcnt ycar. In any casc, thc uriginal nct tar capaci�
must bc Jctcrmincd �tos:cchcr with �ubscc�u�nt a�justmcnis_as sct 1'c�rth�in Minncxota Staiutcs,
seccicm �t6y.177, sub�livisi��n l..�arn�ra�h t�)._In Jct�r�nining thc c�ri�,inal nct.tsx capacity�, th� nct
ta:c,capacity ot rcal ro �rtv cxcm _t t'rom taxation ai thc timc ot`[hc rcqu�st shall bc zcro, crce�t
_..P._..P::._, _.._. _P�. __------- --------� p y -g-�-------�
f r rcal ro crty wh�ch �s tax exempt bv reason ot public owncrshi _ b thc rc uestina authont
and wh�c has bccn ubl�ci owned tor I-'- ess th:in one vear riar to thc datc ot thc re uest or
cen�t�cation in w �ch event thc net tax capacltv o the property shall bc the net tax capacity as
most recentiv determ�ned b the commiss�oner of revenu�
Subd. S. [PARCacement d sltnct�as a sin�le unit }o�f uan oses o1iassessmento the certification
of thc housine re 1
Sec. 4. [ESTABLISHMENT OF HOUSING REPLACEMENT DISTRICTS.)
Subdivision 1. [CREATION OF �ROJECTS.] (a) An authoritv mav create a housing
re lacemenc ro ect under sections 3 to 6, as rovided in this section.
(b) parcels included i� a�icelstcontain n,�vacant houses, or (3)lsarcelsaconta ninn bu ld n s
either { 1) vacant sites, (
. ______.».. ,.,.�,,.�",�aT ac de �ned in inneso ta S t a t u t e s, s e c t i o n 4�. 1 7 4, s u M l iv�s�or
(c) The city in which the aut
from �ts gener fund, a prop
merernents.
(d) The housin replacement
for the purpose o preparing the
e) An authoritv may not
roved a special _law ro
y is located must pav at least �5 percent of the project costs
tax levy, or other unresmcted money, not including tax
rict__p�l�an must have as its sole
to be s-- old for mazket rate hou
not
a parcel _to be included in
c� the
or for
marke
he av
:I' tI11S
isition of p;
mercial ur
housin " i
; mar ec va
bn. lf L�]e Ci
2. [HOUSING REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN.] To establish a
nt district under sections 3 to 6, an authori shall ado t a housin re laceme
1) a statement of the ob'ectives and a description of the housin
a statement of the housin
ve
district
the coordination of that
(3) estimates of the followin�:
!i) cost of the proQram includin� adrninistrative expenses;
(ii) sources of revenue to finance or otherwise pay public coscs;
(iii) the most recent neC tax ca acit � af t�xable real ro env within the housin re lacement
district_and
(iv) the estimaCed captured_nec tax capacity of the housing replacement district at comptetion;
(4) statcmcnts of thc_authority's alt �rn aX�n�ti ur sd� °�ons in whichf thc housina replacemenc
d�strict on thc �net tax ca ap cit►es •f a
district is loc aC d ca tu c'd ncc�� p c�acic Pwiu ld bc a�s lable�co chc caxin� junsd ccionts without
that thc c.snm . P - r._; .. �---
crcation ot thc hous�no rcplaccmcnt d�stnc�, and tor �urposcs ot the sccond stat �hc
� '
1 1'_'TI I I)A1' I
TULSDAY. At'RlL'2. 1996
R69�
.�uthorit� �ha)I a�sumc that nonc of thc cstimatcd capturcd nct tax capacity would bc _availahlc t�
� thr tuxin � urisdiction� without crcation c�f thc housin,�.rc�accmcnt d�su�ct; and
.. ... b.J.. _ _ . .___ _ _ __ .. _ . _ ---•-----
(5) idcnti�catinn ot' �ll parccls to bc includcd in thc distric�
Subd: 3. (PROCEIDIT�RE.j Thc rovisions of Minncsota Statutes, section 469.1?5, subdivision�
�, 4, 5, and 6, a I to ttic establishment and o_peration o the hous�n� replacement �stricts created
undcr sect�ons 3 to 6 cxccpc as fol ows:
E
]) creation of a district within a munici
the determination
,
Sec. 5. [LIMITATIONS.J
is subject to the
law; and
Subdivision 1. [DURATION LIMITS.] No tax increment
�cel m a housinQ re lacement district after ]5 ears rorr,
;t taz increment rom that parcel•
�val of the metropolitan
469.175, subdivision 3, clause
be naid to the authority on each
Subd. 2. [LIMTTATION ON USE OF TAX INCREMENTS.j All revenues derived from tax
increments must be used in accordance with the housin re lacement dismct lan. he revenues
must be used solel to a the costs o site ac uisition, relocat�on, demolit�on o exisnn
structures, site re arataon, and o uuon ahatement on azce s idenu ie m the housin
replacement �stnct p an, as we as pub �c �mprovements and adminisuauve costs d�rectly re ated
to those parcels. �
Sec. 6. [APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS.]
Subdivision l. [COMPLTTATION OF TAX INCREMENT.j The provisions of Minnesota
! ) Statutes, secuon 469.177, subdivisions 1 a, and 5 to l0, a 1 to the com utatzon of tax increment
-" for the housine re lacement dismcts created under secnons 3 to .�
SuTbd. _2_ jOTHER PROVISIOI�TS.) References in Minnesota Statutes to tax increment financin
dismcts created and tax inerements enerate un er Minnesota Statutes, secvons 4 9.174 to
4 9 179, other than re erences m Minnesota tatutes, section 273.13 9, � nclude housing
rnnlarr ment titsmCtS and ta�c mcrements 5t1bJ8Ct t0 secuons 3 t0 , pivviucu �+at Minnesota
_ a t � 1 rn a
tarutes, secuons . • •
.., ._-- ---- _
Subd. 3. [MINNEP.F'OLIS SPECIAL LAW.� Laws 1980. cha ter 595, section 2, subdivision 2.
does not a lv to a district created under sections 3 to .
Sec. 7: [EF�ECTIVE DATE.]
Sections l and 2 are effective for taxable vears besinninQ afrer December 31, 1997. Sections 3
to 6 are effective July ], 1997."
Delete the title and insert:
"A bill for an act relating to mevopolitan government; providing for local zoning conformity in
certain cases; modifying a certain levy limitation for the metropolitan council; allowing for
distribution of funds from the ta�: base revitalization account to development authorities; prov�dine
for distribution of funds from the livable communities demonscration account; authonzing the
'mctropolitan councii to issue bands and to transfer proceeds of certain bonds; requiring a transfer
between certain accounts of the council; providing for metropolitan transportat�on investments;
providing for a joint pawcrs board for cer[a�n public housin€ purposes; a)o� ��P a�nQsfo�a d ort
ccnain public housing purposcs: pmviding for metropolitan airpon inattcrs; p rP
noisc impact rclicf'; amcnd�ng I�9inncsota Stawtcs 199�, scctions 471.59, h�� adding a subdivision;
�73.I_55, by addin� a subdivision; 47�i.167. subdivision 2a; 473.355, hy add�nE a subdivision;
�' ' A73.GU8, suhdivisions ?. 6. 1 G, and b�� adding subdivisions; 473.614, by addin=
q�3,G?�, b�� addin�. a tiubdivisian; and a73.661, subdivision 4; Minncsota Statutcs 1995
�
l
Ot1RtiAL OF T(�lE SENATE
� I 12TN DAY
869-t � ' . .
Supplcment� scctions 473.167, subdivisians 2 and 3; 4'73.253; �73.391: and �173.7Q4, subdivision
� g; Laws t989, chaptcr 279, section 7, subdivisian 6; Laws 1995, chaptcr �'SS, articic 3, scction 2,
subdivisicros 1 and 4: and Laws 199�, chaptcr 265, atticic l, section �#; pruposinb codin� for ncw
�a,w1 in Minncsota Statutcs, chapter 473: repcaiing Minnesota 5tatutes 199�, sect�ons 4�3.ISSI,
subdivision 2; 473.167, subdivision 5: 473.636; and 473.637: Minnesota .Statutes l995
Supplement, seccion 473.167, subdivision 3a."
We request adopcion of this report and repassage of the bill.
House Conferees: (Signed) Dee Long, Chuck Brown, Ann H. Rest, Edwina Garcia
Senate Conferees: (Signed) Ted A. Mondale, Pat Pariseau, Steve L. Murphy, Carol Flynn, Dick
Day
Mr. Mondale moved that the foregoin� recommendations and Conference Committee RepoM
on H.F. No. 3012 be now adopted, and that the bill be repassed as amended by the Conference
Committee. The motion prevailed So the recommendations and Conference Committee Report
were adopted.
H.F. No. 3012 was read the third time, as amended by the Conference Committee, and placed
on its repassage.
The question was taken on the repassage of the bill, as amended by the Conference Committee.
The roll was called, and there were yeas 56 and nays 9, as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Beckman Janezich Laidig
Belanger Johnson. D.E. Langseth
Berg Johnson, D.J. Lesewski .
BeTzold )ohnson. J.B. L.essard
Day Johnston Limmer
Dille Kelly I`'i�Y
Finn Kiscaden Meczen
Fischbach K]eis Mondale
�y� Knuuon Morse
Frederickson ICramer Murphy
Hanson Krentz Neuville
Hottinger Kroening 23ovak
Those who voted in the negative were:
Anderson Chandler Larson
Bergiin Cohen Merriam
Oliver
Olson
Ourada
Pappas
Pariseau
Pogemiller
Price
Reichgott Iunge
Riveness
Robertson
Runbeck
Sams
Moe, R.D.
Piper
Samueison
Scheevel
Solon
Spear
Stevens
Stumpf
Terwilliger
Vickerman
Ranum
So the bill, as amended by the Conference Committee, was repassed and its title was agreed to.
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE - CONTINUED
Mr. PresidenG
I have the honor to announce that the House has adopted the recomrnendation and reporc of the
Conference Cammittee on House File No. 219, and repassed said bill in accordance. with the
report of the Committee, so adopted.
House File No. 219 is herewith cransmitced to the Senate.
Edward A. Burdick, Chief Clerk, House of Representatives
Transmitted April 2, 1996
�.
CITY OF IUIEIVDO'TA HEIGHTS
i1��7
March 25, 1996
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Kim Blaeser, Senior Secretary
SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Information
Enclosed please find items that would have been included in your March 13
agenda packet. If you would like to comment on these items, you are encouraged
to do so at the April 10 Airport Relations Commission meeting.
1. Memorandum from Jeffrey Hamiel to IVIAC Commissioners regarding NWA
Development Plan.
� 2. Letter from Nigel Finney to the Dual Track Task Force regarding the Public
`_� Hearing and Written Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process.
3. Eagan Airport Relations Commission Agenda for March 20
4. Letter from the City of Richfielci to Nacho Diaz and Nigel Finney.
5. Letter from Mayor IVlertensotto to the IVIAC regarding Comments on the
Dual Track Airport Planning Process Draft Environmental Impact Statement
6. Part 150 Buyout Update
7. NDCARC February 20 Meeting Minutes
8. Newsletter Article - Richfield �lasts MAC Environmental Study
9. Newsletter Ar�icle - March 5- Star 'Tribune - FAA Predicts Blue Skies for
Airlines
10. Newsletter Article - Public Officials Shouldn't be Short-Sighted on Dual
( Track Airport Planning Process
11. Newsletter Article - How Should the Twin Cities Meet its Airport Needs?
12. Newsietter Article - March 15 - St. Paui Pioneer Press - Airport Plan Now in `
Hands of Legislature
13. Newsletter Article - March 17 - Start Tribune - On Airport Issue,
Minnesotans Can't Rely on the "Experts"
14. Newsletter Article - March 17 - Star Tribune - Cleared for Takeoff
15. MASAC March 26 Agenda and February 27 Minutes
16. MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for January
�
','Q; Aii Commissioners
FE20M: Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director
SCD�JEC'9': MWl�e DE�lEL9PNIENT PLAIV
DA1'E: February 20, 1996
Following the Febn.�ary meeting of the Planning and -Environment Committee, staff of the
Commission and Northwest Airiines have met to discuss an approach to dealing with futu�e
tertninal development at MSP. These discussions were prompted by a desire on the part of
the Committee to resoiVe issues that were raised by both NWA and staff relative to future
development. •
Attached for your information is a copy of language agreed to by staff and NWA regarding an
approach to compieting� the pianning process. The key-elements� a�e as follows:
1. � Agreement on the level and location (Lindbergh Tgrminal) of development tb �
meet 2010 needs:
2. Agreement that the 2010 development plan could satisfy demand beyond that
period, depending on the growth in activity.
3. Agreement to use Concept 6 as the basis for the ongoing environmental review
process.
4. Continued discussions between the staffs to further review development needs.
I believe that this agreement gives the Commission the basis to proceed with the remainder
of the process.
�
C
(
(;
�.
The legisiation that estabiished the Duai Track Airport Planning Pracess requires that the MAC
� adopt a �ong Term Comprehensive Plan for Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport that
satisfies air transportation needs for a 20 year period (to the year 2010, based on sta�ting the
planning process in 1989-1990). The legislation also requires that the MAC adopt a concept plan
for the.airport for an additional ten years (for a totai time period of 30 years, or to 2020). There
is a further requirement that the plans be updated at least every five years, and amended as
necessary to include "...changes in trends and condition�� facilities requirements, and+
development plans and schedules. The plan is intended to be fluid and provide a flexibie
biueprint for future airport development, when a need and fi�ancing for facilities are clearly
defined. It is not a commitment to buiid facilities, insteadt it is a dynamic document which ca�
be adapted and amended ta meet future needs.
The focus of much of the planning process has been the.2020 conceptual plan. Significant effort
has, however, aiso been given to the 2010 development. pian, since that is the more cost
effective, cancrete and definitive proposal. The 2010 needs can be met by phased development
of the existing �indbergh Terminai Compiex, incrementaily adding facilities as they are required.
Underiying this appraach are three fundamentai concepts: 1) to maximize use of the lindbergh
Terminal area, 2) to develop facilities in an incrementai rrianner based an demon�trated need,
and 3) to provide high quality passenger-handling facilities-in the most cost-effective manner.
Development phasing is dependent upon demand. The potential locations for additional gates are
at the end of the Gold Concourse and at the end of the Green Concourse. Under either of these
scenarios, the Post Oifice and the auto rental service sites wouid be impacted by moving the
regional airiine apron into area cuRently occupied by these facilities. Up to an additional 24 gates
cauld be added by further e�ensions of the Green Concourse and Gold Concourse.
MAC and NWA agree that the 2010 development needs can be met by an i�cremental expansion
program of the Lindbergh Terminal (No�thwest's Concept 6A), and needs through 2020 may be
met by Concept 6A. Some levei of continued development will be necessary in the Terminal
Building to accommodate increased passenger leveis, and improvements will need to be made
to the Red and Blue Concourses to accommodate increased leveis of passenger activity. The
MAC must continue to invest in the airport infrastructure to maintain a high quality facility.
Developme�t beyond 2010 is less certain due to the inherent probiems in forecasting activity that
far into the future, particulariy in an industry as dynamic as aviation. Depending on the rate of
growth in passenger activity, the 2Q10 plan couid provide adequate capacity through 2020. MAC
and NWA agree� however, that a 2020 plan showing the possibility of a new terminai on the west
side of the airport� with the existing Lindbergh Terminal complex recon�gured into linear gate
concourses (Concept 6) will be used as the basis for the analysis in the Dual Track Environmental
Impact Statement� since it shows the maximum impact of terminal development at MSP and wiil
aliow the development of the North-South Runway and 2010 terminal pian to go forward without
a new EIS process.
�
To the extent that the Lindbergh Terminai complex can continue to meet passenger needs after
2010� it should be fuliy developed and therefore, it wouid not be necessary to proceed witti
development of a west terminai. If, however, a new te►minai is justified at some point in the future,
completion of the pianning, airspace and environmental reviews at this time wouid allow
development to proceed based an the concuRence by all parties that it was necessary.
As indicated above, there is a requirement that the Long Term Comprehensive Plan for the airport
be reviewed ai least every five years. This document must be dynamic and flexibie, it must adapt
to the changing industry. These reviews provide the opportunity to continuously monitor trends
in the industry and the level of activity at the airport, and to make adjustments in the plan as
required.
C
�
1l�iE7CRC�P�L�i'AN .,��a.P01z'TS CC�I��IMISSIOI�T
`,�Y�,S 54�','�q Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
? t°� 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
� 2 Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 ��---
mt t o
� n a y
0
F
o F
'} G
S
DA"i'�R �
�
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 7, 1996
Dual Track Taslc Force
_: . e ." i �� �;��
��.�....��
Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director, Planning and Environment
Public Hearing and Written Comrnents on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Two public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were held. A hearing was hetd on
Wednesday, January 17, 1996, at Hastings High School, in the City of Hastings. Approximately 40
people attended, of which 14 made comments. A hearing also was held on Thursday, January 18,
1996, at Washburn High School, in the City of Minneapolis. Approximately 60 people attended, of
which 22 made comments.
The 60-day comment period ended February 13, .1996, and 44 written comments were received, The
following is a list of those submitting written comrr}ents:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
�, - ,� MN Department of Agr.iculture
_ MN Depariment of Natural Resources
MN Department of Transportation
MN Historical Society
MN Pollution Control Agency
� WI Deparhnent af Naiural Resources
WI Deparhnent of Transportation
Metropolitan Counc'rl
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area
^ Commission
Dakota County
Washington County ,
City of Bloomington
City of Eagan
City of Hastings.
City of Mendota Heights
City of Minneapolis
City of Richfield
City af Rosemount
City of St. Faul
Consulta.nt representing Southern Dakota
County Townships and Cities Airport
Planning Group
Denmark Township
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation
District .
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Vermillion River�Watershed Management
Commission
State Rep. Jean Wagenius/
State Sen. Carol Flynn�
State Sen. (W[) Alice Clausing
Northwest Airlines
Sierra Club
Nokomis East Steering Committee
South Metropolitan Airport Action Counc'il
Pierce County Farm Bureau, et. al.
12 from the generat public
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an eff'umative action empioyer. �. ti
RsiIfHVPT Airoorts: ATRi.AKF. • ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN
Summary of Major Comments:
There were comments on several issues by more than one respondent. A summary of the major points
raised generally fall into the following categories -- forecasts, alternatives, economic analysis and
-.-�� environmental impacts -- as fotlows:
.� ��r � , •:t; ' :
� l. Forecasts. The accuracy of the forecasts for the planning year 2020 was questioned as being
too low, based on recent activity at MSP and the FAA 2010 forecasts.
2. Alternatives. The Northwest Airlines alternative should be evaluated in the EIS. The ability
of MSP to accommodate demand beyond the year 2020 was questioned, considering the forecasts as -
being too low and the physical and environmental constraints on providing additional runway
capacity at MSP.
There was disagreement on the need for site preservation if the MSP Alternative is selected, with
some saying the Dakota Couniy site should be preserved because there is a risk that MSP will not be
adequate in the future and others saying site preservation would place severe handicaps on affected
property owners, accelerate the conversion of affected farmland to other uses and hinder future
planning.
Both alternatives should be at a scale that allows another �airline to compete with Pdorthwest-Airlines
for the Twin Cities market.
3. Economic Analysis. The analysis is weak and inadequate, with an overreliance on multipliers
and factors. The following economic impacts should be evaluated:
• Impacts on businesses around both MSP and the new airport site; �
a Impacts on downtown Minneapolis,business�s; /"
• Impacts on the regional economy, including the ability of MSP to accommodate economic gro"wth l
in the region beyond 2020;
e Impacts on properly values (noise);
• Costs of airport delays; �
v Impacts of monopoly pricing by Northwest Airlines;
• Costs and benefits of the reuse of the MSP site;
' • Cost of noise mitigation beyond the DNL 65 noise contours;
• Costs of no-action highway improvements needed for airport access; -
• Financing of airport development.
4. Environmental Impacts. The following comments were made: �
� The amount of induced deve(opment and the likelihood of urban sprawl and retated impacts are
understated.
� Analysis of development of the existing airport site, including the costs and community impacts,
should the new airport be developed, shoutd be included in the EIS.
• An analysis of all county roads impacted should be included.
• Impacts within highway, pipeline and power line corridors needed for the new airport should be
analyzed fully.
• The amount of farmland that would be lost to airport development is understated.
• Naise impacts beyond the DNL 60 contours are not addressed. Mitigation should extend beyond
the DNL 65 noise contours.
• The analysis of water quality impacts for stormwater, wastewater and groundwater, is not
adequate. (
t�
The following is a summary of substantive comments from the hearings and the written comments:
FEDERAL AGENCIES
� •�n-, • � . - ._ ��-, _
New Airport Alternative:
• The Final EIS should indicate the number of acres that are considered prime farmland and
describe the kinds of ineasures that would be taken to minimize impacts to prime farml'and and to
the farming community resulting frorn new airport development.
• EPA concurs that the new airport site is rnore vulnerable to contamination than the existing
airport site. The Final EIS must provide a thorough description of specific measures that would be
taken to protect ground water from contamination.
• The Final EIS should provide inforination on-MAC and MnDNR eoordination regarding impacts
to loggerhead shrike habitat and measures that will be taken to mitigate impacts to the habitat.
• The Final EIS should document the statement that no threatened or endangered species are known
to exist in the corridors serving the new airport; a survey may be necessary to provide this
- documentation4 Mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts should be included in the Final EIS.
f� ��)
o The Final EIS should provide information concerning impacts resulting from induced commerciat
and residential development and measures to mitigate against those irnpacts.
MSP Alternative:
• The Final EIS should provide information on the types of ineasures that will be tak.eri during
construction of bridge structures and a new storm sewer outfall pipe to ensure that wetland soils
are left undisturbed.
• To offset the loss of naturally-occurring wetlands adequately, the Final EIS shoutd provide a
wetlands mitigation plan that provides a minimum of 1.5 acres of compensatory wetlands for each
acre removed. In addition, EPA recommends plans for restoration of previously drained wetland
rather than creation of new wetland out of upland.
: The Final EIS should provide description of the status of consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on the impacts of MSP expansion to bald eagle nests.
• The Final EIS should provide information on measures selected to mitigate against impacts to
historic and archaeologicat properties on the MSP site.
fe
Both alternatives/generat:
• The Alternatives analysis section of the Draft EIS is incomplete. Specifica(ly, the Final EIS �
should include a summary of the project alternatives that were considered for implementation and
the rationate for eliminating these alternatives from consideration. Also, further consideration
should be given to the most effective project planning period; EPA betieves it would be useful to
extend the timeframe another 10-15 years.
• The Draft EIS does not adequately assess potentially significant environmental impacts that may
occur as a result of roadway access construction projects.
• On the issue of air quality, the Final EIS should provide additional information on the
methodology used to develop the receptor neiwork. In addition, the Finat EIS should include a
discussion of the re(ationship between the one-hour and eight-hour CO concentrations, as well as
a discussion of the temperature used in the models.
• 1fie Final EIS shouid identify types of ineasures to be implernented during construction to
minimize the introduction of soil and contaminants into nearby bodies of water.
• The Final EIS should include information on the status of field tests, instituted in 1993, on the use
of urea substitutes and an indication when these products witl rep(ace urea permanently.
s Natural vegetation should be used for erosion control.
• The Draft EIS does not address the issue of airport development impacts to woodlands. The Final �
EIS should provide information on measures to compensate for woodlands that are removed and
for the impacts to wi(dlife. Removed trees should be replaced with native saplings at a minimum
1:1 ratio.
• The Final EIS should include information on proposed disposal plans for solid waste generated
during the construction process.
• EPA recomrnends the use of materials and procedures which minimize the use of energy and
which reduce the amount of waste and promote recycling.
S'I'ATE AGENCIE
U ��- • . �-..�u�-� . �„
--- - -.•�.�,._,
New Airport Alternative:
• The loss of 17,000 acr-�s of farmland is not minimal for the state of Minnesota, but extremely
large. This represents 7 percent of farmland lost during the 1982-92 period and more than 70
percent of average yearly loss of farmland.
• The extent of potential loss of farmland in Dakota. County because of induced development has
been underestimated. Estimates of induced development should be based on additional possible
�
r�
�
development scenarios, rather than on a growth scenario frorn the Metropolitan Counci! and local
governments.
• New development in rural areas increases the potent'tal for conflicts between urban and rurat uses,
with the result of driving agricultural uses from the area.
• Farmland lost should include acreage used for road and interchange construction. The
Transportation section does not adequately describe the interchanges required for the new airport.
Minnesota De�artment of Natural Resources
New Airport Alternative:
• Of the mitigation measures noted for loggerhead shrikes, nesting habit acquisition would be the
most valuable, since airport operations may preclude on-site habitat preservation. Loggerhead
shrikes may not habituate.
• The storm sewer should be constructed so that water table of the area is not permanently lowered.
MSP Alternative: -� � � � �
• While bridging over Mother Lake is an appropriate mitigation strategy for Forster's terns and
prairie plantings, the tienefits to the terns of implementing higher stable water levets are
premature and other water level management strategies should be considered.
Both alternatives:
o Efforts to reduce the quantity of runoff, which are (arge at both sites, could be reduced by greater
use of native vegetation. � �
Minnesota Denartrnent of Trans�ortation
New Airport Alternative:
• Impacts of proposed highway improvements on Dakota County roads are not analyzed.
o There should be sufficient detail regarding corridor-levei impacts of highway improvements to
fulfll the requirements of a Tier I EIS for subsequent environmental studies.
• Lists of transportation improvements are inconsistent or describe different projects. Some
improvements are not in the 20-year plan because of funding constraints. Only the costs of
highway improvements dne to the new airport are shown, not the costs of other (no action)
improvements needed for the airport. These costs, approximately $160 million, shoutd be
identifed and added to the required project costs of $298 million. These figures do not include
right-of-way costs. _ -
MSP Alternative:
• Existing ground access to the airport is su�cient to meet vehicle tra�c demand through 2020.
( � • The lists of transportation improvements are inconsistent or describe different projects. Some
� improvements are not in the 20-year plan because of funding constraints. Only the costs of
�
�
highway improvements due to MSP expansion are shown, not the costs of other (no action)
improvements needed for MSP. These costs, approximately $67 miilion, should be identified and
added to the required project costs of $101 million. These figures do not include right-of-way �
costs.
• The traffic generated by a new airport is not included in the current (MPCA) air quality emissions
inventory nor is it included in the assumptions used to develop any future emissions budget.
Both alternatives:
• There is a potential that roadway improvements could impact Section 4(fl properties, inc(uding
parks, recreation areas and historic sites.
Minnesota Historical ociety
New Airport Alternative:
• Some archaeologica( and historic properties related to corridor improvements still need to be
surveyed and others already surveyed need to be evaluated for National Register eligibiliiy. The
DEIS section on Section 4(� properties should acknowledge this.
• The analysis of site preservation impacts should include a discussion regarding cultural resources.
Both alternatives:
o Proposed mitigation measures, and potential mitigation measures, will need to be discussed
further through the 106 process and incorporated into a Memorandum of Agreement.
C
Minnesota. Pollution Control A�encv
New Airport Alternative:
• Using the experience at MSP. how would spills and leaks be handled at the new airport?
• There is no information to support the statement that it is not possible to provide wetland
mitigation on-site.
v The DEIS does not fully evaluate transit options to meet transportation demands, under
provisions of ISTEA legislation. Also, the impact of the airport on county roads is not discussed.
• Even though the airport would be outside the nonattainment area, a conformity analysis is
required.
MSP Alternative:
• A full discussion of water quality impacts of a surrogate discharg� from the site to the Miss'rssippi
River should be included.
• Duck Lake is not a detention pond but a state water and must meet state water quality standards:
• The DEIS does not discuss how treatment of runoff will be upgraded if the airport is expanded,
leaving even (ess room for waste treatment facilities. �
6 !_
p The Final EIS should include an updated discussion of the geology of the MSP site.
• More groundwater samp(ing is needed to determine if there is negligible impact on the St. Peter
aquifer.
• The Final EIS should provide information on detection of leaks from fueling operations and
document the existence of required spill prevention plans.
o A discussion of licensed hazardous waste generators at MSP and their methods of operating
shoutd be included.
Both alternatives/general:
o Issues which were scoped out of the DEIS should be referenced in the document to provide a
more inclusive discussion of potential impacts.
• The DEIS does not include an analysis of development issues associated with conveyance of
stormwater to the Mississippi River. The DEIS lacks detail for a full analysis of the sformwater
line proposed to run to the Mississippi River.
• Clarifications and yualifiers regarding assimilative capacities and river standards must be
included in the document.
• With regard to glycol, the document should include a discussion of a full range for CBOD
reduction in stormwater, not simply a reconfigured detention pond system.
• The dissolved oxygen "sag" that overlaps the existing Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant
discharge and sag, included as an issue in an earlier PCA memorandum, was not .included in the
DEIS.
� Toxic discharges were not fully discussed in the DEIS.
• The DEIS should have fully discussed MAC's existing NPDES permit and how MAC intends to
reach full compliance with water quality standards.
• The impact of airport discharges to lakes and wetlands was not discussed in necessary detail.
• The level of analysis of groundwater issues is not the same for the two sites; decision makers
cannot compare the sites.
• A comprehensive discussion of the interconnection between surface and groundwater issues
should be provided for both sites.
• The storage and distribution method for deicing chemicals, and other hazardous substances,
should be included in the EIS.
• The environmental impacts during construction and mitigation measures should be discussed.
�`' j Detailed construction staging plans, including strategies for managing traffic, should be included.
7 "`
• Clean Water Act requirernents are applicable to wet(ands that are drained or excavated, not just
filled.
An indirect source permit (ISP) would be needed regardtess of the alternative chosen. The ISP
process wi(1 require a detai(ed air quality anatysis for the terminal and associated roadways.
• Funding for roadway improvernents for both alternatives should be identified.
Wisconsin De�artment of Natura) Resource
New Airport Alternative: •
• The Executive Summary should include an item indicating significant induced development
resulting from changes in land use from rurai to commerciat, industrial and residentia( uses, as
well as the inconsistency with Metropolitan Council efforts to contain urban sprawl. The scope of
the induced development analysis is too narrow and does not indicate the irnpacts on existing
communities, including public services. The number of acres lost to induced development should
be included. The analysis of induced development impacts on Wisconsin communities could be
understated; there are no mitigation measures to deal with growth pressures.
• Acreage of land use changes shou(d be reevaluated.
• Impacts to the environment, including i,mpacts to biotic communities and on endangered species,
as described in the DEIS, are not minor; this is a result of the loss of acreage and indirect habitat
degradation.
• There is inconsistent information about the num�ber of overfl ights of less than 2,000 feet over (
identified waterfowl areas near the new airport. .
• Motor vehicle consumption likely wou(d rise more than the DEIS indicates, given the remote
location to the new airport.
• There are inconsistent data on the amount of farmtand that would be lost because of a new airport
and induced development. Moving the MUSA line is contrary to farmland preservation efforts.
• The costs to redevelop the existing airport site, including demolition and cleanup costs, should be
included in the Final EIS, or the potential for costs shouid be noted, as the figures couid
substantially change the tota.l project costs.
• The economic analysis does not inctude a discussion of impacts on businesses around MSP
should a new airport be constructed. •
Both alternatives/general:
• The Northwest Airlines proposal should be evaluated in the Final EIS.
• Figures in the Executive Summary regarding the No Action alternative are not explained.
• Discussion of project goals and measures of performance should not be included in the
alternatives section (III) of the DEIS. �
m
o Financing plans for each alternative should be included in the EIS, to determine if development is
feasible.
a The solid waste section should include a discussion of potential hazardous waste issues.
• The assimilative capacity of the Mississippi River should be clarified, with regard to s�rface
water quality and runoff issues.
• Recreation users of the Lower St. Croix River will be impacted, compared to current noise levels,
even though overflights will be greater than 2,000 feet.
► .� � �-. 11�- • � �• •�
New Airport Alternative:
• The induced development analysis spreads out additional households rather than concentrating
them in specified towns.
Airport-bound tra�c from Wisconsin-is too�widel}�distribe�ted over�+arious roads in both states.
Various routes to the airport do not mesh with expecta.tions that there will be interstate access to
an international airport.
� Both alternatives/general:
`. • Wisconsin and its agencies should be included in such sections as "cooperating agencies" and
"purpose and need." � �
• FAA work on an airspace study should be included as a"related environmental document."
Analysis of impacts of all three alternatives on various existing highways and potential highway
improvements are inadequate. The following issues should be addressed: travel times to both
build alternatives from Wisconsin; improvements on specrfic highways in both states that would
be impacted by new airport development and whether those improvements would be adequate;
and the funding for needed highway improvements associated with the No Action Atternative.
� '�'� Y_.�,
►i• •r• .� �•.�
New Airport Alternative:
•'The Final EIS should include revisions to the design of water quatity basins to provide nationwide
pollutant rernoval efficiencies.
MSP Alternative:
• The proposed north-south runway at MSP would have flights below 2,000 feet over the
� Minnesota Valtey Nationat Wildlife Refuge, which would be inconsistent with the Council's
(_ Regional Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan.
�
• The DEIS assumes the Mississippi River has the capacity to assimilate wastewater effluent from
the outfall to the river. The Final EIS should evaluate restrictions on that capacity to present
constraints on that capacity for new future discharges to the river.
• The DEIS assumes construction of iransportation projects that are still under study (including I-
35W from downtown Minneapolis to I-35E and I-494 from I-394 to 34th Avenue) for which there
is no funding commitment under the Council's transportation policy plan amended to conform
with ISTEA.
Metropolitan Council--Tran portation Advisorv Board
New Airport Alternative:
s The impacts on county roads, including forecasts and costs, shou(d be analyzed in the Finat EIS.
Impacts on CSAH 42 are understated. �
• Vehicle fuel consumption to the new airport site is substantially understated.
s Trave( times, especially during the peak hour, assumes freeway capacity in 2020 to handle the
projected traffic. Travel shed times are optim'rstic in some areas of the region.
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundarv Commission
New Airport Alternative: .
� The high potential of contamination of aquifers should be stated in the Executive Summary.
. �.
• Improvements to highways are not discussed, including MN TH 95 from Stillwater to Hastings
and Washington County roads, as well as changes in highway corridors from such cities as Red
Wing and Rochester.
• The goal of a new airport, to promote orderly growth and economic development of the region, is
not consistent with goals in other documents, such as the Metropolitan Council's Regional
Blueprint and agricultural preserve legislation.
• Descriptions of impacts on biotic communities as "minor" are inconsistent with the numbers of
acres which would be removed by airport development.
• The number of acres of farmland lost to airport development is inconsistent thraughout the
document.
• Statements about the extent and location of induced development in the 13 townships are
inconsistent from one part of the document to another.
• The airport would have a radical impact on both urban and agricultural communities in Pierce
County, Wisconsin. �
• The APE for corridor improvements, impacting parks and recreation areas, does not include the
St. Croix and Mississippi river valleys.
10
if
• The number of vehicles projected on such highways as US 61 and US 10 are inconsistent from
one part of the document to another.
MSP Alternative:
• The noise section does not include a detailed discussion about FAA requirements for quieter
aircraft, including the timetable for implernentation, and the results of this on residents around
MSP.
No Action alternative:
e The No Action alternative should not be so constrained that no capacity be permitted beyond
1997.
• The loss of 2,800 acres of farmland under the No Action alternative is questioned.
� . . . •. � �
New Airport Alternative:
• Since the DEIS states that the return on the investment in airport development would be the same
under both alternatives, the cost of a new airport, compared to expanding MSP, would not bring a
return on that investment.
• The economic analysis, with an over reliance on BEA multipliers and factored enplanements, is
weak.
o The tax capacity analysis does not evaluate additionat public services that might be required and
the resulting impact on local jurisdictions of providing those services.
• The estimates of induced development, particularly of households, are low.
• Because of the LESA figures regarding the quality of farmland at the new airport site, the FAA is
required to consider other sites or reduce the amount of land removed from agricultural use.
• Additional analysis on the social irnpacts of site preservation is needed.
• The DEIS does not analyze the impact of a new airport on Dakota County roads or road projects
elsewhere in Minnesota.
MSP Alternative:
• Expanded and�ccelerated noise mitigation for northern Dakota County cities is needed to reduce
impacts of airport operations at MSP.
• All future aviation activity can be accommodated with an expanded MSP.
�" � e The county supports analysis of an MSP alternative that involves incremental expansion of the
—. . existing terminal.
1
Washington County_
New Airport Alternative:
• The DEIS does not reflect the draft county comprehensive plan that agricultural areas in the
southern part of the county are expected to continue to be planned and zoned for agriculture and
for one dwelling/40 acres. Land use impacts in the county should be analyzed in the induced
socioeconomic section.
• The DEIS does not analyze transportation impacts an state and county highways within the
county that will require capac'►ty improvements for all alternatives.
s There witl be noise and visual impacts on visitors to Grey Cloud Island Regional Park.
Dakota Countv Soil and Water Conservati�n Di trict
New Airport Alternative:
s The new airport site constitutes 4 per�ent of Dakota County's 6est farmland and its (oss would be
significant.
•, Two runways and airline maintenance buildings in the northwest corner of the new airport site
may be located near the Vermillion River and have a detrimental impact on the natural flood zone
and wetlands.
• Additional information is needed to assess the impacts of a stormwater management system. `
Minnehaha Creek Water hed District
MSP Alternative:
• Additional analysis of the impacts on Mother Lake and the Mississippi River are needed,
including such issues as runoff volumes, nutrient loadings and detention basin design.
• A comprehensive sequencing analysis of the impacts of filling wetlands should be included in the
Final EIS. Further evaluation of potential wetland mitigation srtes will be needed.
�� � • � � • 1'! ►/ • . �'�i' • �
New Airport Alternative:
• Grading for airport construction woutd fill in a portion of the floodplain.
• Changes in drainage patterns need to be analyzed. One result of these changes is that the analysis
does not conform to watershed management commission sectors, and direct comparison with the
. commission's requirements is difficult.
12 td
• Water quality treatment will be required for the entire site, not just the 41 percent of the site that
would be contaminated. .
e The impact of induced development should be included in the water quality analysis.
('ITIES ANID TOWNSHIPS
Blooininaton
MSP Alternative:
• Arrival and departure flight tracks and operating procedures for the proposed north-south runway
must be developed in consultation with affected cities to mitigate noise impacts on residential
areas.
• The area eligible for noise mit'rgation must be expanded with the minimum being the 2005 LDN
60 noise contour.
• A supplernental analysis of additional terminat alternatiyes, such as proposed by Northwest
Airlines, should include impacts on surrounding highway traffic volumes and whether it can
accomrnodate future passenger growth. - - '
The economic analysis should be expanded to include�employment relocated from the area
sunounding MSP to Dakota. County, reuse of the MSP site if the new airport is developed and the
relative timing of development costs. The economic analysis should also compare whether the
benefts of airport development could not also be met if similar arnounts of money were spent on
other public services. �
a n
New Airport Alternative:
• Tax capacity calculations for the new airport assume no property within the airport boundary will
be privatety owned and pay taxes, and do not include increases associated with induced
development.
• The amount of farmland acreage needed for development of the new airport is oversta.ted.
• The analysis of groundwater quality at the new airport site and the Executive Summary are
inconsistent. . �
MSP Alternative:
• MSP should be expanded only if (a) the Dakota County site is preserved so that the airport siting
process need not be repeated if tra�c growth exceeds the projections, (b) noise abatement well
beyond the DNL 60 noise contour is provided and (c) there is no expansion until the airline
industry achieves an all-Stage III fleet.
• The state should be satisfied that the existing site can accommodate future air traffic growth.
�' ' Forecasts of air traffic growth may be underestimated and planned additions to airport capacity
`- have the potential of creating delay costs.
13 �¢
• Cost estimates for expansion at MSP do not include the possible addition of a third para((el
runway to accommodate demand beyond the 2020 forecasts.
• Noise mitigation costs for MSP are understated.
• Flight tracks depicted in the DEIS do not reflect current operating procedures, affecting the
accuracy of the noise contours and potential mitigation.
• Analysis of social impacts of the proposed north-south runway shoutd be expanded to inctude
portions of Eagan and Burnsyille.
Both alternatives/generaL•
� Calculations of carbon monoxide emissions are questioned, inciuding those for the te►�ninal and
parking facilities and for routes to the airport sites.
� Cost of airport delays are not included in the economic analysis.
� Can economic benefits from airport construction be recaptured so as to modify capita.l
construction costs for both alternatives? -- - . . ..
• The re(ationship between the Northwest Airlines proposal and the DEIS should be clarified, with
alt agencies given the opportunity to review supplemental impact anatysis on the airline's
proposal.
H tin
New Airport Alternative:
• The DEIS does not address impacts to historic structures in Hastings (City Hatl is an example)
that would occur if infrastructure improvements are needed to serve the new airport.
s The DEIS shoutd acknowledge that if figures for induced development within Hastings are
accurate, the MUSA and wastewater treatment plant capacity would have to be expanded.
• The analysis of light emissions should be expanded to include impacts on Hastings of emissions
from aircraft using the north-south runways on the new airport site and lights on new roads �
serving the new airport.
• The analysis of floodplain impacts should be expanded to include Hastings, as the Vermil(ion
River bisects the southern part of the city.
• Noise associated with taxiing and run-up operations at the new airport will not be insignificant, as
stated in the DEIS; the increase in noise levels; over the existing noise levels, should be
identified.
• Hastings opposes site preservation using legislation beyond that already enacted, including any
property tax exemption for MAC; if site preservation is considered, the analysis should be
expanded to include the (highway and utility) corridors serving the airport site, not just the site �
14
tf
itself. The impacts of site preservation on the school district and municipal tax revenues are not
analyzed thoroughly.
• Impacts to Section 4( fl properties in downtown Hastings from highway improvements must be
identified and analyzed.
a The impacts of relocating Trunk Highway 61 south of Hastings, which would be in the RPZ of
the crosswind runway, should be analyzed; the analysis should include impacts on traffic patterns
and airport development costs.
• The analysis of surface water quality should be expanded to include the�potential location of a
new wastewater treatment plant and a description of a sludge treatment plan.
• The discussion of contamination of the groundwater is insu�cient.
Mendota Heights
New Airport Alternative:
o Induced development associated �vitl� a xaw airport, and economic ben�ts f� Dakota County,
are underestimated.
• Economic benefits and tax base impacts associated with reuse of the MSP site are not analyzed.
i ) MSP Alternative:
• The analysis of noise mitigation efforts, beyond the existing sound insulation program, is
inadequate. The DEIS should identify the areas anticipated for saund insulation.
• Assurnptions for growth in airport operations are not consistent with current growth rates. If
capacity at an expanded MSP is exceeded by 2020, analysis is needed to analyze the impacts of
future additional runways at MSP.
• The DEIS does not include a cost-benefit analysis of regulating noise and altering operations at
MSP.
Both alternatives/general:
• The DEIS should include an analysis of the Northwest Airlines proposal.
• All the costs associated with each alternative, as well as additional alternatives such as proposed
by Northwest Airlines, are not identified.
• The original dual track planning schedure should be followed.
• The DEIS does not analyze the impact of either alternative on housing values; costs of stabilizing
these values should be included in the document.
15 �"
1
Minneapolis
New Airport Alternative:
• An analysis of the impacts of reuse of the MSP site, shou(d a new airport be built, should be done.
MSP Alternative:
• The forecasts of air traffic growth in the DEIS are questioned. Different potential operating
scenarios for Northwest Airlines should be evaluated in an analysis of forecasts for MSP beyond
2020. The assumptions for the forecasts developed by MAC and Northwest Airlines are very
different from FAA predicted levels
• The DEIS raises the possibility of adding a third parallel runway at MSP after 2020, yet there is
no ana(ysis of its impacts. If there is no analysis of a third parallel runway, reference to it shoutd
be removed from the EIS.
• On the issue of noise impacts and the increase in the number of airport operations over South
Minneapolis, the DEIS is lacking analyses of neighborhood and community concerns for each
alternative on such issues as risk and uncertainty and the costs to address these concerns. Without
such analyses, the document meets its �tated purpose�but does not have a factual basis for a
realistic perspective on each airport atternative.
• The analysis of the costs of noise mitigation beyond the DNL 65 noise contours should be
included to provide a comparison between a new airport and expansion of MSP. Noise readings at
all monitoring stations should be included, not just those within the DNL 65 noise contours.
• The DEIS does not analyze the costs of the airport borne by residents living under the flight (
paths.
• An ana(ysis of impacts on noise levels by reducing aircraft operations, or demand side
management, should be done.
• For each alternative, an analysis of regionat economic impacts, as we(1 as of economic impacts on
downtown Minneapolis businesses, should be done.
• The Air Quality analysis should include a discussion of greenhouse gases, reduction of emissions
by reducing operations, and the impact of increased transit on emissions.
• Clarification of land acquisition within the city of Minneapolis that is proposed for MSP .
expansion is needed.
e The City Council has not made a finding that construction of a new terminal at MSP would be an
opportunity for conversion of the adjacent single-family residential area to commercial or hotel
uses. -
• There should be a comparison of tota.t landside delays, including both average trip time and on-
airport aircraft operations, for all alternatives.
16 r6
• The Northwest Airlines ptan for MSP should be fully analyzed in the Final EIS, or the Final EIS
1 should state it has not been analyzed on a par with the other alternatives. The city raises questions
about how the airline plan would work operationally and its impact on such issues as off-airport
mitigation costs. The city believes any new airport or expansion at MSP should be at a scale that
allows another airline to enter the Twin Cities market and compete with Northwest Airlines.
�c fiel
MSP Alternative:
• The city had requested a 45-day extension of time to comment on the DEIS, which was denied by
MAC and the FAA. The city asserts that denial of the request to extend the comment period
violates federal law.
e Comparing MSP, with four runways, and a new airport, with six runways, is not eyuitable.
o Mitigation of impacts, and the costs of impacts, are not adequately discussed.
• The regional approach of the DEIS does not acc�unt for the specific impacts on communities.
Impacts on each community, not just cumulati�ve irr�pacts�; must be-analyzed. � �•
•. The AED process, selecting an MSP alternative and a new airport alternative for analysis in the
DEIS, violates NEPA rules that require analysis of all the atternatives. The DEIS should be
revised to include a range of alternatives and then recirculated. Consideration of additional MSP
and new airport aiternatives in the AED's is irrelevant for NEPA purposes because those
documents were prepared entirely for MAC and were not prepared, reviewed or approved by the
FAA.
o There is insu�cient analysis of the impact of the proposed north-south runway on several issues,
including night operations, impact on residential neighborhoods and the operation of a converging
runway.
• The Air Quality analysis should include discussion of such issues as additional intersections,
should factor in the impact of inetered interchanges and should measure the irnpact on sensitive
receptors.
• The DEIS should include a discussion of econamic impacts on land values and potential
redevelopment adjacent to the airport in Richfield. Mitigation for the (oss of tax revenues is not
discussed.
s MAC is responsible for the viability of surrounding communities; MAC should fund the city's
program to amend its cornprehensive plan to allow redevelopment that is compatible with a north-
south runway and new terminal access. Funding of the comprehensive plan amendment is a
mitigation
• There is no mitigation measure for light emissions into Richfield residential neighborhoods.
r �
- Rosemount
17 ta
The Minnesota Legislature should end the airport planning process during the 1996 legislative �
session. � .
• A new airport is not necessary, as future airport needs can be met at the existing airport.
St. Paul
New Airport Alternative:
• The Land Use and Economic sections of the DEIS base their conclusions about development
patterns around a new airport on comprehensive plans and growth projections, not on
development like(y to occur with construction of a new airport. Issues related to that development
also should be analyzed. Economic anatysis on potential sprawl around the new airport should be
done.
• There should be an ana(ysis on reuse of the MSP site should a new airport be built.
MSP Alternative:
• Additional economic analysis,�detailing impacts of all airport alternatives on cities adjacent to
MSP, on the region and on Ho(man Field, should be done.
• There should be an analysis of risk if a site for a new airport is not preserved and the airport is
deferred, as well as analysis of need for site preservation in (igfit of additional economic analysis
_ , requested.
C�
Both alternatives/general:
� The region's non-attainment air quality status should be documented.
• There should be an analysis of the synergy between air pollution and automobile congestion.
• The original schedule for dual track airport planning should be followed, so that there is sufficient
t'rme for public review and for comprehensive remediation measures.
• Air travel forecasts should be clarifted and conflicts between different forecasts (FAA, MAC)
should be resolved, as they make it difficult to draw reasonable conclusions regard'rng the
advisability of a new airport.
• �.,�: � , � � � � �• ' � �' • r
New Airport Alternative: �
• On the issue of costs, relocating the airport to Dakota County is too expensive; there is a$2
billion difference in development costs between the two alternatives. Some costs are riot detailed,
particularly those for road improvements.
• A wastewater treatment plant should accommodate not only a new airport but also development
induced by airport development; the cost of an expanded plant should be identified. �
18 4e
• There is an inconsistency between the DEIS text, which acknowledges induced development
'' � would occur as a result of airport development, and the figures, which depict no changes in future
land uses. Also, while the DEIS ta.x revenues will increase as, a result of induced development,
regional policies support onty limited induced development.
o A new airport would negatively impact high quality farmland in Dakota County, as well as the
agricultural economy of the county and state. There are conflicting figures of the amount of
farmland that would be lost to airport development.
• It is inconsistent for a regional agency to plan an urban-oriented regional facility outside the
MUSA boundary on agricultural land designated in regional policies for preservation.
• Land in the DNL 65 noise contours and State Safety Zone A should be acquired.
s The townships and cities oppose land banking; it results in social and economic uncertainty and
would hinder future planning. _
Denmark Townshi�
New Airport Alternative:
e The Executive Summary is a poor summary of the text of the DEIS and will not give decision
makers the information they need.
• The goal of a new airport, to promote orderly growth and economic development of the region, is
not consistent with agricultural preservation legislation and the Metropolitan Council's Regional
Blueprint.
o The number of acres of farmland lost to airport development should inciude not just those on the
airport site, but also those in the protection zones and those impacted by induced development.
• The induced development section is confusing and includes contradictory information.
• The traffic figures for southern Washington County are inconsistent. Required improvements to
Washington County roads, to hetp divert tra�c from TH 61 or I-494, are not discussed.
• Site preservation is a bad idea; the money should be spent on renovations of the existing airport
site.
INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS
S�#ate Sen Alice Clausin�lWiscon�inl
• Impacts of new airport induced devetopment on Wisconsin are understated, specifically impacts
�� �
on public services from the population growth and business expansion:
�
19 tF
• More information is needed about redevelopment of the MSP site if a new airport is developed.
Specificaliy, the sale of the MSP site may not cover the cost of the cleanup. r
�
• The viability of the Northwest Airlines proposat should be considered in the Final EIS. '
s The iinpacts of upgrading existing highway,s and constructing new highways are not reatistically
addressed; specifically, it is not realistic to assume that those in western Wisconsin woutd not
travel I-94 to Highway 95 to reach the new airport.
Representative Sheila Harsdorf (Wisconsin�
• A decision on the Dual Track by the Minnesota Legislature during the 1996 session is supported.
s There would be no increase in airfie(d capacity by relocating the airport compared to expanding
the existing site:
Re�resentative Jean Wagenius/Senator Carol FI, nn
The assumptions of the DEIS are flawed, since annual airport operations have grown in the last
six years by 100,000, to 475,000, and there is a prediction that there will be 520,000 operations in
2020. That projection provides for 45,000 additional annuat operations for the next 25 years. The
proposed north-south runway would provide another 80,000 annual operations, for a total of
125,000 annual operations over the next 25 years, a bit more than the growth in air traffic over the
last six years. With no room for a second new runway at the existing site, MAC is in effect (
placing a cap on Minnesota's economic growth. MAC was not able to forecast the circurnstances
that resulted in an addition of 100,000 operations during the last six years, so the question is how
MAC can predict that the same kind of growth will not occur again during the next 25 years.
• It is an impediment to the state's economy for businesses to pay a premium for air travel because
of monopo(y pricing at the existing airport.
• If there is an unspoken assumption that land will be acquired for another runway, that should be
stated and its impacts analyzed.
• The economic analysis is missing important elements, including the effect of monopoly pricing,
the businesses that are expanding and receding and the impact of that on the state's infrastructure,
and the effect on the economy of an airport without room to grow and with the delays that wouid
occur because of a constrained site. The economic analysis is tied to the forecasts, which are
flawed, not to actual air traffic.
State Senator Jane Ranum
• The economic analysis is flawed.
• The 60 and 65 DNL noise levels are used as a measure for compensation (sound insulation), not
the impact of noise on residents; residents outside that area are impacted. �
20 r�
o It is a faulty assumption that there will be less noise impact by 2005 because of quieter jets and
reduction in flight frequency.
�vlavor Sharon S��es Belton
o With so much money and work expended thus far during the Dual Track process, the proposal to
have an early decision should be rejected.
• MSP creates a regional imbalance in cost and benefit because it generates noise but is convenient
for business.
• The DEIS does not describe the impacts on downtown Minneapolis businesses, the I-494 conidor
or the new airport area. The document does not describe various economic impacts, such as
developrnent, jobs and tax base for each alternative, nor the impacts on residential areas.
• There are myths about airport noise. Quieter jets will not mean tess noise; noise insulation will
not solve the noise problem because residents who live beyond the noise contours are affected,
and new technology will spread the noise over a larger�area, affecting�mo�e people. Eighty
percent of the area near the airport was built up before the use of jets was increased.
o Minneapolis will never accept a third parallel runway.
• MAC should approve a long-term facilities plan which can work.
Representative Dennis Ozment
• The econornic analysis does not include costs of off-site relocation for. a new airport. When those
are added to the on-site costs, the fgure wiil be staggering.
• A new airport wi(t simply shift the noise prob(ems to another location; so, something should be
done for the noise in South Minneapolis and northern Dakota County.
• Land banking is opposed.
• The Legislature should make a decision in the next two months.
Re�+rPs�ntative Jerrv i�emosev
• The Legislature should make a decision.on the Dual Track during the 1996 session. All the
information far that decision should be to the Legislature in sufficient time for a decision during
this session.
• Taking 17,000 acres of farmland out of production is not in the best interest of the state or the
� j local farming community.
21 fd
�.
Dakota County Commission Joe Harris
• Atl future airport operations can be handled at the existing airport or at an expanded airport.
• The economic benefit from either an expanded MSP or a new airport will be the same. The state
cannot afford a new airport.
• If the Northwest Airlines proposal is feasible, it should be analyzed in the Final EIS.
• The economic section of the DEIS is weak, with an overreliance on BEA multipliers. The tax
capacity analysis does not evaluate the demand for public services for any new development that .
would occur as a result of a new airport.
o The induced development numbers are low.
• The effect of induced devetopment on the agriculture community is unacceptable.
• The LESA evaluation requires MAC to consider other alternative airport sites or to reduce the
amount of land taken out of agriculturat use. --� .-
• Land banking would have negative social impacts on the area.
• Additional analysis is needed in the transportation access section of the DEIS, including the
impacts on Dakota County roads, the assumption that Mn/DOT projects wil( be buitt when they
are not included in the long-range plan, and proposed highway projects in Greater Minnesota. �,
�ouncil Member Paul Hicks City of Hastings
• There is a formalized coalition between the city of Hastings and SOAR.
• The Legislature should conclude the Dual Track process during the 1996 session.
+ 1VIAC sliould make the best operational decisions to keep MSP competitive and should have
progressive noise mitigation efforts.
Council Member Kevin .arr Il Rosemount itv Council
• The Minnesota. Legislature should conclude the Dual Track during the 1996 session.
• The afFected environ�ent for site preservation, as well as corridors for roads and utilities, comes
c(ose to the city of Rosemount and the city would be impacted by site preservation controls,
particularly attracting industry and commercial development to the city. Also, site preservation
controls would increase land speculation.
22 ta
NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Northwest Airlines
• The Final EIS should consider the airtine's proposal, cornpared to the other alternatives in the
Draft EIS. The airline's proposal would.meet the air transportation needs and woutd have less
environmental impact that either the MSP expansion or new airport alternatives.
• Not considering the airline's proposal in the Final EIS jeopardizes the determination of adequacy
because of state and federal regulations that the EIS consider prudent and feasible alternatives
with fewer environmental effects.
• The DEIS does not propose significant mitigation measures for loss of rnore than 34 acres
impacted by MSP expansion, including access roads and airport entrance road over Mother Lake,
nor the impacts of corridor improvements for the new airport.
• Timing of the proposed project is not entirely clear.
• Because not all environmental impacts are discussed; i�e.; the limited analysis of the off-site
corridors for the new airport, the federal and sta.te environmental processing requirements are
compromised.
• Not all alternatives for MSP were considered; only the MSP A(ternative received serious
consideration.
• There is no evidence of federal involvement in the preparation of the DEIS, as required by federal
regulations.
• A cost-benefit analysis of the alternatives is missing from the DEIS.
' � • � C . . • , 1�- ��
New Airport Alternative:
• A new airport would destroy thousands of acres of farmland.
�ierra Club
• Other reasonable alternatives, including those that integrate modes of (air and surface)
transportation, were not considered in the DEIS, thus questioning the value of the document.
• The DEIS underestimates the urban sprawl that will be generated by development of a new
airport and the resulting travel times from the core cities to the new airport. Plans and zoning
regulations for 13 municipalities and the Metropolitan Council will change over time, permitting
urban sprawl.
l� ) �
< <.
23
�
• The cost estimate for a new airport does not include costs for infrastructure associated with urban
sprawl, as well as costs associated with the (oss of fartnland. loss of wildlife habitat and
additional carbon monoxide emissions.
GENERAL PUBLIC
• The existing airport is convenient for business employees and customers.
o There should be no further expansion of the existing airport, as it is too small.
s Noise created by the existing airport is excessive and a new airport is necessary.
s A new airport wou(d be inconvenient, too expensive and cause destruction of vatuable farmland.
• The Minnesota Legislature should end the dual track airport planning process during the 1996
legis(ative session.
• On the issue of projected growth in air traffic, is the estimate of 11 percent growth by 2020
accurate and, if not, what is the �fallback �position? •How �ong will the existing airport be able to
handle air transportation needs? What projected growth in air tra�c would require construction
of a fifth runway (at MSP) and, if a fifth runway is required, where wou(d it be located?
• What impact would a new airport have on the development of a multi-airline hub?
• What is the extent of pollution at MSP that would have to be remediated so that the site coutd be �
reused if a new airport is developed? �
• Possible development of a third paral(el runway at MSP should be analyzed in the DEIS,
inctuding such environmental consequences as off-airport property acquisition and relocation,
location of safety zones arid environmental impacts.
• What are the costs and impacts of consiructing a specific remote runway site, compared to
construction of a new airport and MSP expansion?
• With recent increases in air traffic at MSP, when would construction of a third parallel runway be
necessary?
• The DEIS ignores noise impacts beyond the designated noise contours.
• A study of airport needs should look beyond 2020, when a third para(lel runway would be needed
to accommodate air traffic.
• Rezoning an area of Minneapolis north of the existing airport to allow commercial deve(opment
to serve a new MSP terminal is opposed. An Environmental Impact Statement on such a rezoning
should be done.
• Farmland will be lost anyway, even if the airport is not relocated, because of urban expansion. �
24 te
• Farmland around an airport can still be farmed.
e The distance to Hastings is so far that it becomes a"straw man" to keep the airport at its present
location.
• o Northwest Airlines, with increasing monopoty at the airport, should post a bond that they will add
no new flights.
• Is it still accurate that the noise damage is $3 billion, as stated in the 1991 Preliminary Selection
of an Airport Concept, by MAC?
� More time is needed for planning an airport into the next century, as 2020 is not far in the future.
The year 2020 is when growth will really take off.
• A third parallel runway at MSP, which has been referred to, would take out several hundred
homes and expand the noise footprint, which would be the result if the airport is not relocated.
o A new MSP termirial would force the expansion of Cedar Avenue to downtown Minneapolis,
with a detrimental effect on Lake Nokomis and nearby parks.
• An analysis of reuse of the MSP site is not included in the DEIS. In particular, what are the
economic benefits from reuse and the cost of cleanup?
- • The assumption of the sound abatement program that residents live only in their hornes, and not
� in.their yards and elsewhere in the neighborhood, is faulty.
• If the population of the state and the metropolitan area is growing, it is shortsighted to think the
existing airport is going to accommodate growth in the future.
« To have a modern airport on a small site will hurt the economy of the region, and it doesn't make
sense to spend $3 billion on an airport that will be too small for the future.
• What noise abatement is planned for those living immediately adjacent to the DNL 65 noise
contours if MSF Alternative is built?
• Because the prevailing winds result in so much usage of the two parallel runways, in actuality
how much would the proposed north-south runway really be used?
• Because of FAA regulations about time between departures and landings, the air space for MSP is
saturated and because of the prevailing winds, use of the proposed north-south runway will be
limited.
• Use of the proposed north-south runway would preclude use of the two parallel runways.
• Is the proposed north-south runway safe? How can the north-south runway be included in the �
� DEIS if the FAA studies to determine safety have not been completed? Will there be a future
; hearing on airport safety? �
)
tc
25
• The issue of safety, and the potential for an aircraft crash in residential and commercial areas
around MSP, is not discussed and analyzed. "
• The proposed north-south runway,wil( not help residents with noise.
• The Dual Track goat of deciding how and where to build a new airport has been (ost because it
would threaten Northwest Airline's monopoly position. What is the plan to buy land for a new
airport?
� The report on the remote runway concept was criticized because it did not take into account costs, .
such as the impact on the South Minneapolis neighborhoods if the number of airport operations at
MSP is reduced.
• Fast-tracking a Dual Track decision by the governor's appointees would jeopardize all the studies
done in recent years.
o What would happen to jobs at the existing airport if a new airport is built?
• There should be an economic hearing on the alternatives.
• The numbers regarding Induced Development are not believable.
• The impact of the New Airport Alternative on the City of Vermillion is not analyzed.
• The MSP reuse study receives minimal treatment in the Draft EIS, particularty the costs of
demolishing the existing airport and using the site for something else. ��
• Site preservation is unacceptable. If MAC recommends building a new airport, it should be at a
date certain and not left open-ended or contingent on an unknown.
• The Draft EIS does not address all of the impacts of the New Airport Alternative on western
Wisconsin.
� The DEIS does not adequately describe the Twin Cities economy and its potential for growth,
how the regiona( economy is tinked to other economic centers, and how an international airport
woutd be linked to the future of the regional economy.
s To serve the state and its residents, there needs to be an airport with capacity to handle air traffic
demand that is not the business of only one airline and where few people are affected by noise.
• People who reside outside the DNL 65 noise contour are impacted by noise.
• The cost of mitigating noise ($3 billion) for MSP operations is not (ogical when land is available
elsewhere.
• To stabilize the tax base in Hennepin County, the airport should be moved. Because of noise and
its impact on the tax base, other jurisdictions are subsidizing the City of Minneapolis and the
airport. _ ( .
26 {F
• In the economic analysis, there should be a range of projections of growth, or a comparison of the
"low growth" fgures in the DEIS with historical growth �gures from the past 20-25 years.
• If historic growth projections are used, MSP will need more capacity than is in the DEIS
forecasts.
• The DEIS does not adequately address problems of aircraft congest'ron and. delays at the expanded
MSP airport.
o An airport of limited size and dominated by one carrier denies consumers a competitive market.
Figures regarding the cost of the monopoly should be included in the economic analysis, as well
as comparing a new airport with competitive pricing to a monopoly hub.
• The real cost of MSP expansion should include soundproofing, tax loss and social costs of a
buyout of property.
s The 1991 MAC study (Preliminary Selection of an Airport Development Concept for the Long
Term Comprehensive Plan) included $3 billion for noise mitigation. This figure should be
included in the DEIS.
• There is inconsistency in the nurnbers of acres of farmland lost to new airport development.
• What is the long term cost of the No Action Alternative?
• Compare the funding of a new airport with that of an expansion of 1VISP.
• The nurnber of acres, and residences, that would have to be rezoned for commercial and industrial
uses under the MSP expansion should be included in the DEIS.
• What guarantee is there that all Stage III aircraft will be flying in 2000.
• What are the impacts of noise on humans, not just birds?
o Would an expanded MSP still observe the "quiet hours" of midnight to 5 a.m.?
2'7
�
m
,
AGENDA
` � WORKSHOP MEETING
�AGAN AIRPORT RELATICDNS COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
CONFERENCE itOOMS 2A & 2B
EAGAN CITY HALL
March 20, 1996
7:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL �i1�TD ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
lil. NUISE CCDMPATIBILITY POLICIES
° ,~` � � S � S
��<��� � �� � , . : �
,,,
�y .:�
�Af� 1 � �+�. �� y` �i '.
Y7� '.
� �.rrwrr�r�•�rrrMrlAt��
..._.�,•--
IV. RESPONSE TO DUAL TRA,CK RECOMMENDATION
V. UTHER BU5INESS
VI. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 10
NEXT WORKSHOP MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Thursday, April 18
NEXT MASAC MEETING - 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 26
VII. ADJOU]ELNMENT
Auxiliary aids for persons witla disabilities will be provided upon ad'vance notice of at least 96
hours. If a notice of less tlaan 96 laours is received, tlie City of Eagan will attempP to provide
suclz aid. �
�
( l
'03/18/96 11:30 F.� 612 861 9i49 CITY-RICHFIELD ��� IIZENDOT� HEIGHTS �002
6744 Port[and Avenue • R�chfeids Minneso� 55423-2599
Ciiy Manager Mayor
James D_ Prosser Martin Kirsch
Ivlarch 20,1996
Nacho Dia� Transportation Plan.ning Duector
Metropolitaa Coua.cii
Mears Pazk Cen1r�, 23d East Fifth Street
S�. Paul, MN 55141
Ngei Finney, Deputy Executive Director
Meiropolifaa. Airports Commission.
b040 28th Avenue South
M'wneapolis, MN 554�0
Dear Gen�iemen:
cn�����
Don Priebe Michae3 Sandahi
Susan Rosenberg Rcrss Susag
Now that the Metropolitan Airports Cammission and Metropolitan. Councl have made their
reco.mm.endati.ons to expand the e�isting MSP facility, it is time to begin looking at miiigatian
measures that will make a real difference_ Many commissioners and couucil members expressed
specific concern that tbe issues of neighborhood siabili�.ati.on an.d noise mitigation be given tb.e
Iughest priority. Toward that end, we would like to be�n disc�sions with MA.0 and Met
Couacil staff imm.ediately. The comm.�mi.ties also have severai recommendations for thi.s
pmcess.
� First similar to the collabora.ti.ve planning effort; consu3.tants should once again be retain.ed to
faczlrtate this effort. Creafivity an.d vision must be the cornerstone of this effort. It would
definiteIy benefit us to utilize tiie taZen.ts of someane who can proT✓ide tbat creatzvity. This does
not mean we should exclude the cansultan.fis used in the joint planaing, as they aze already
familiar with the concems of the patfi.eipating agencies. I�owever? we also do not wish to limi.t
attr choices.
Second, a baseline must be set for discussion of mitigatioa poss��ilities. To esfiablish tbat
baseli.n.e, we aze zequesting that a noise contvur map -- out to 64 DNL — be developed for th.e
hi�-ead projection of640,000 operations in 2005. This map should be the foundaa�ion, but not
necessaril.y the Iimi� ofmitigatian alter�atives_ �
Finally, in order �that a mutually a,�eed upan miti.�ation packa�e is develaped before the i 80-da.y
deadline, the pazticipating ageneies shauld es�ablish a reauiar mee�� sched.ule for discussions.
The Urban Hometown `: `
03/18/96 11:31 F.� 612 861 9?49 CITY-RICHFIELD ��� 1�ENDOTa HEIGHTS
�
Nacho Diaz and Nige1 Fi.nn.ey
March 2Q,1996
Pa,ge 2 ,
Thank you for consideratian of these requests. We Iook forward to workia� together for the
bett,erment of the comm.unities suffouading MSP and fhe en,tire zegion.
Sincesely,
Kevin Baichelder, City Administrator
City of Mendoia Heiahts
Paul Faruxer, Piannin� Director
City of M'tnneapoiis .
James P=asser, City 3v.i'a�a.ger
Cit� af Richfi.eld
Mazk Be�abardson, Ciiy Manager
City of Bloomington
Jon Hohenstein, Asst. City Admintsrraro�-
City af Eagaa.
jdv
Capy: JeffHamiel, MetropoIitan Airports Commission Execc�iive bimctor
J'�m. Solem, Metropolitart Council Reg'tonal Adrniuis-ti-ator
Y..K.I`t �o!*.rtsL�q � /�� C1C�v.^
�
�.�dy C�,�✓Z , ��C Cf�w �
�
Ql`�03 ',
C.
�
C
' '`'�3/18/96 11:33 FAX 612 452 8940
� RECEPTION OR
TX/RX N0.
CONNECTION TEL
CONNECTION ID
START TIME
USAGE TIME
PAGES
RESULT
hiENDOTA IiEIGHTS
�:��:�:�:�:�:�x��:�x:x:���:��:�:���:�t:x:*��
�:x:x: ACTIVITY REPORT x��r�
�:af:�:�:�Y�&'�:W�k�:ksY�k�::fi���kW�:�f:�k�kW��k
6579
612 861 9749
CITY-RICHFIELD
03/18 11:31
O1'21
3
OR
�
tQj 0 O 1
-03/18/96 11:30 F.� 612 861 9T�9
CITY-RICHFIELD -►-►-+ MENDpTA HEIGHTS I� (;0'1 ' ''
�
- 6704 P'ortland Avenue • Richfield,lVEmnesota 55423-2599
Cityr Manager Mayar Council
James D. Prosser Martin f: rsch Oon Priebe Michaet Sar�dahl
Susan Roser+berg Russ Susag
CITY OF RI�HFIELD
F`��X Z'R'��N'S M I TTAL FO�',.M
Date_ Ma�ch 28,' 3996 Time: 11:00 a.m. Number of Pages; 3
tincluding this cne}
Toc Revirl. Batchelder, City Administrator
Campanys City of Mendota Heights
Phoz�.e Numbes: 452-185� Telecopier N�ber: a52-89Q0
From: James Verbrugge
Media Asszstaa�/Airport Issues Phoae: 6I.2-861-9716
If you do not recei.ve aIl of the pages iadicated, please call...
Name: Sue Muilenberg Telephoae Number: 861-9?00
Kevin -
I believe we talked about this letter briefly a week or two ago.
If you have any additions, deletions, or other general comments,
please feel free to give me a call_ If everyone is satisified, I
wi.11 probably be around on Wednesday or Thuxsday fvr signatures.
Let �crie ]inow if you aze unava�.Iab].e either c2f those days .
Thank� -
Jamie
The Urbart Hometown `'
C�
�
�.
�
, ,:; :
. .
� � � • � •
; �
February 12, 1996
Metrapolitan A.irports Commission
c/o Ms. 7ean Unruh
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
RE: Comments on the Dual Track Airport Planning
Process Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Commission Members:
This letter is to serve as the City of Mendota �ieights comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Dua1 TYack Airport Planning Process and is also to serve, to express
our concerns about the Dual Tra.ck Airport Study. �
� . . � �. • i- � � r. . . ;� t.
The City of Mendota Iieights offers the following comments to the published Draft
Environmental Impact Statement: � �
1. The DEIS does not identify, or examine, all the true costs and benefits fbr either
airport txack that has been studied. In addition, the DEtS la.cks a true cost comparison
or impact analysis for all possible options that could be uaderta.ken, or that are
cunently being considered, including Northwest Airlines Concept 6A and the
Rosemount Option supported by the Minnesota. Public Lobby.
�-
2. The DEIS does not quantify the benefits from the potential redevelopment of the
existing MSP site if the airport were to be relocated to Dakota. �County. An analysis has
not been completed that examines the economic benefits and the tax base impacts that
- would accrue due to the redevelopment of the MSP site.
3. The DEIS analysis of the e�cternal costs on the communities that currently surround
MSP, due to the impact of increased noise pollution caused by earpanding the current
airport, are inadequate. The amount of money estimated for noise mitiga.tion is based
upon the existing Part 150 program and is grossly inadequate under a scenario of an
expanded MSP. The DEIS assumes that the elcisting home insula.tio� pmgram is
( l adequate to alleviate the noise pollution problem and the estimates for noise mitigation
costs are based upon the current home insula.tion program aad the amount of money
1101 Victoria4 Curve • 1Viea�dota Heights, 1ViN • 55118 452 • 1850
�.
Metropolitan Airports Commission
February 12, 1996
Page two
currently available for this Part 150 program, The DEIS states this is adequate to
alleviate the noise pollution problem. There is no substantiation for this claim, nor
does the DEIS adequately address this issue. No other noise mitigation efforts are
included in the DEIS analysis, outside the noise insulation ro
be a credible document, further review is neces to ad uate� � or the DEIS to
�'Y �1 y yze the external
costs of noise pollution on communities surrounding an expanded MSP, to identify
noise mitiga.tion efforts other than sound insula.tion and to anaiyze the costs and benefits
of these other noise mitiga.tion efforts.
4• The DEIS does not address the impact from noise pollution on housing values for
communities surrounding MSP under a scenario of an expanded airport, For the DEIS
to remain a credible document, the costs of housing value depreciation must be
included in the review of impacts for an e�anded MSP. The costs of commnnity
stabilization and economic revitalization should be included in the DEIS, for both
tracks of the study. The costs of properi.y value guarantee programs� � credits for
housing revitaliza,tion programs and other community stabilization progr�ms should be
included in the DEIS. _
C^
5• The DEIS does not adequately address, or iden
insulation u �Y� the ama, to be included for sound �
p rposes, or for other noise miti,ga.tion efforts, as mentioned above.
Therefore, the costs for this program are again grossly underestimated. Further review
is necessary. : � .
6• The DEIS assumptions for the growth in oper�.tions are inadequate and do not equate
with current, neai gro� �tes in operations. Fnrther review is necessary to adequately
determi.ne if an expanded MSP will reach capacity before the end of the current study
time line in the year 2020.
Should an expanded M5P reach ca,pacity before the year 2020, additional runways may
be necessary. The DEIS has not addressed future additional runways at an expanded
MSP and their potential impacts in terms of noise e�osure and environmental impacts,
community disruption, economic development and/or decline and tax base impacts.
This is a serious flaw in the DEIS, based on an assumption that this impact will occur
after the t,i�me line assumed for the study. Further review is needed.
7. The DEIS underesttimmates the induced development benefits for a relocated aitport and
the economic benefits that would accru e to D a ko t a County.
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
February 12, 1996
Page three
�
8. The DIIS does not adequately address the costs and benefits of regula.ting air noise
generation and exposure. If NI5P is to continue to e�st its present loca.tion, it is
esse�atial that "teeth" also be put a�to the �egulaxions affectioaa the operation of the
airport. The DEIS assumes that current operational procedures wi11 remain in place
with an expanded MSP. There is no analysis to substantiate the costs and benefits of
this assumption. Long term community compatibility with MSP has not been fully
analyzed in the context of operational changes that could more equitably d.istribute air
noise generation. The following operational considerations should be included in the
cost and benefit analysis of the DEIS:
a. The aircraft departure corridor should be narnowed over Mendota �ieights and
Ea.gan to take full advantage of the latest a�ir traffic control technology. The
introduciion of a G1oba1 Positioning Satellite navigation system at MSP should
greatly improve the safety of airspace management, and will also lessen the
distance aircraft need to be sepazated 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 surnounding 1VISP to
min;mi�.� air noise impacts over residential areas.
b) The inequitable reliance on the Mendota Heights/Pagan corridor should be
eliminated. The capacity of the corridor is finite, aad communities overflown
by.aircraft using the corridor ought not be expected to endure air noise exposure
beyond a fair limit. All commuaities sarrounding MSP receive significant
economic benefit from its close proximity. Similarly, all should;be expected to
bear a reasonable and equitable share of the associated noise burden as well.
c) Over the Mendota. Heights/Eagan area, departing aircraft should be directed to
ut�lize, to the fullest extent possible, less noise sensiti�e areas, such as industrial
park properiy and highway rights of way. These areas have been planned in
conformance with existing and appmved airport ruaway configurations, are in
conformance with Metropolitan Council guidelines, and have been approved by
the Metropolitan Council. To fully accomplish this goal, aircraft during non-
busy hours should be directed to fly a crossing pattern in the comdor, ra.ther
than being given departure headings which overfly close-in residential. areas.
This crossing procedure during non-busy times has been approved by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission aad is curnently awaiting implementation by -
the Federal Aviation Administration.
d) Oace modified to take advantage of the latest air traffic control technology and
� � adjusted to correct for air noise distribution inequities, the boundaries of the
aircraft departure and arrival comdors should be specifically defined, and a.ir
�
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
February 12, 1996
Page four
noise exposure standards should be established along this corridor. Aircraft
operators violating these standards should be subject to substantial monetary
fines. . ,
e) Nighttime aircr�ft restrictions should be put into pla,ce immediately to ensure
that only Stage �, quieter aircr�ft are flown between the hours of 10:30 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. Such restrictions should be maadatory and violation of the
standards should result in a monetary fine to the offending air carrier.
� Noise Abatement Departiire procedures (rela,ted to how quickly ai�cra.ft gain
altitude upon departure) should be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that the full
perfonmance capabilities of all aircraft are being utiliized. The ability of aircraft
to rapidly gain altitude, thereby minimi�ing �� noise levels experienced on
the ground, should be quantified and made part of a3r trafiic departure
procedures at MSP. This is especially true for Stage III aircraft,
g) In its MSP Comprehensive Plan, the MAC has identifiied a future niflway
constiuction pmject located on the west side of the airport property. This new
North/South runway, if built, is expe�ted to accommodate air tra�f�c needs well
�� beyond 2020. The face of aviation will be considerably different by that time �
and will hopefully include later generation aircraft wluch will be substan�iall.y
quieter than the current Stage ffi quiet aircraft, and high precision air traffic �
. control technology which will ensure safe airspace management with a
minimum of aircr�ft separation. With this in mind, the MAC should commit
�t �Y airport expansion identified in subsequent MSP Comprehensive Plans
will be "noise-neutral", meaning tha,t no new noise impacts over residential
amas will be generated off of the airport property as a result of the future
addition of new runways.
�-
h) Also related to the MSP Comprehensive Plan, the MAC should establish
measurable criteria by wluch the performance of MSP is to be judged in
deciding whether or not airrport e�ansion is wananted. These performance
criteria. should be frequently and regularly reported to allow interested parties to
manitor the need to undertake the improvements described in the
Comprehensive Plan.
• �' ` 1' • 1 � 1 1 • � :�!
The City of Mendota. Heights is concerned with the recent appea,rance of the Northwest
Airliaes Concept Plan 6A and the likelihood that it will receive consideration from the decision
makers on the Metropolitan Airports Commission and at the Legisla.ture. This piaa has not
r�
Metropolitan Aiiports Commission
February 12, 1996
Page five
been included in the review for the Draft Ea�ironmental Impact Statement. If NWA Concept
6A plan is to be considered, it will be necessary for the Metropolitan Airports Commission to
re-open the Environmental Impact Sta.tement study to include this plan in all phases of impact
analysis.
As sta.ted above, the DEIS fails to address any impacts for additional runways beyond
the year 2020, or before the year 2020 if the growth projections are discovered to be
underestimated. The Northwest Airlines Concept 6A includes a pmjected north parallel
runway. The DEIS fails to address any'potential impacts that a north parallel runway would
have including community disruption, declines in property tauc base values, noise pollution and
other environmental impacts that would occur under the Northwest Airlines Concept 6A.
The Ci'ry Council of Mendota Heights disagrees with the �Yletropolitan Airports
Commission's decision to speed up the Dual Track Study Process to report to tke Legislature
in March of 1996. The public comment period for the DEIS concludes on February 13, 1996.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission will need more than one month to adequatcly address
each communities comments and to address all the areas where the DEIS may be inadequate or
'in need of further review. Mendota. Heights supports the original schedule, as prescribed in
current state la.w, for the completion of the Dua1 Tra.ck Airports Study.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft P,nvironmental Impact
Statement. We eagerly await your reply and response to our comments and concerns.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Mertensotto
Mayor
cc: Kevin FIowe, Metropolitan Council
Kurt 7ohnson, Metropolitan Council
"„'t�"o�imo,s�eei�"'o��iE�E!-�,�"0""o"6e'ee,�o„'eaa„'�A,e,�a,eo""'
FEBRUARY 1996
� � ISSUE 26
� .�►
� � s
SER/OUS PROBLEM SEE YAIV6AL/SNl IP�POIPP
Ia�.,,o�.A���'�����"'t'e'��'�''a.'�,o�a�c�e",,d"'�"�'t,e�'�saAt�sia�'e�'�e�,a
VANDALISM Example number (1): a small house in need of
some work may sell at auction for $100.00-$500.00.
Serious Problem Increases Sharply Due to the vandalism done to this house, it would
not sell at auction and will need to be demolished at
The vandalism issue has been addressed many times a cost of about $6,000.00 to the project. Example
in previous issues of the Buyout Update. There has number (2): This is a beaudfiil, well cazed for
been a sharp increase in vandalism since January of rambler which could be auctioned for �15,000-
'this year. MAC and WDSCO aze asking each and $20,000. After the vandals have broken windows,
every homeowner/tenant still residing in the doors and part of the interior, the auction price may
neighborhood for their help against this very costly be as low as $2,000.00.
and serious probiem. .
MAC, WDSCO and the City of Richfield police
snspect the vandalism is being performed by
juveniles still residing in the New Ford Town area,
who know the area well enough to avoid the police.
, t>:��'i'• :: The vandalism is happening during the evening and
:.� :.<.�:::: . .
"�'��`��� early inorning hours (4:00-5:00 am.), both on
� �� weekends and weekdays. The vandals have
�-: :�.
� F�=��',:� previously broken windows, doors, and inside light
� `� fixtures. They have even pulted kitchen cabinets
::�:<�:� .
and sinks from the wails, and destroyed the interior
���-:: of properties. This vandatism is happening right
; �,c:; . :
next door to occupied houses and it is possible that
� vandals could damage an occupied house in the
.�''%�� .. future.
'* ;:.�::
R .�::
� ::�::%: ,
: ;�;' :
;;a::.
:r'r.: :
Vandalism takes away from the neighborhood and
the project in two major ways. The first way is in
the appearance of the neighborhood. Due to the
con6nuance of this problem, the broken windows
not only create a safety hazard, but an "invitation to
crime" from outside the neig6borhood MAC and
WDSCO may be forced to board up all windows
aad.doors on each and.every vacant house, &om the
outside. This is something none of us want to see
happen. The second.effect that vandalism has is in
the cost of lost funds for the project. As you aze all
aware, all monies generated from the auctioned
houses goes directly back into the project. We will
give you two examptes of how costly this problem
has become. These costs are above and beyond
what MAC pays to get the properiy management
firm, Pham Express, to clean and board the houses.
If you are a homeowner or tenant still residing in
the neighborhood, and either see or hear anything
suspicious, call 911 .immediately. Ptease do not
assume someone else has already called The City
of Richfield police have increased patrols in the
neighborhood. But because the vandals use the dark
of night to hide, it is very hard for the police to
catch them and they need your help. Vandalism
within this project is considered a federal offense
and any vandal caught will be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law. The extent of the damage is
estimated to be more than 550,000.00.
FIFTA AUCTION SCHEDULED
MAC, WDSCO, and Kloster Industrial Auctioneers
are cunently planning the fifth public house aucrion.
The auction date is set for March 14, 1996. Kloster
Industrial Auctioneers will send information packets
out to those individuals and companies currently on
the mailing list. Approximately 30 houses are
scheduled to be auctioned. Prior to the aucrion,
three open houses will be held. 'The first one will
be held on Saturday, March 2, and the second one
on Thursday, Msrch 7. �_Both open houses � are
� scheduled for 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. A third open
house will be held the day of the auction, from 8:00
am. - 1:00 p.m. WDSCO consultants will be
patrolling the project area during each open house.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the
open house, please call our oti'ice at '724-8898
during regular business hours. If you have any
questions regazding the actual aucrion, please
contact Kloster Industrial Auctioneers at 931-9013.
The Part 150 Buyout Update is a newsletter by the Metropotitan Airports Commission and W.D.
Schock Cotnpany, Inc., containing information on the MSP Land Acquisi�.on and Relocation
Projects.
tYOTE: New asbestos material regulations are
being rcquired and wili be explained at the
auction.
The auction will be held at the Richfield American
Legion, 6501 Portland Avenue South, Richfield. '
The auction begins at 1:30 p.m.
.
DEMOLITION UPDATE
All demolition under the current contract will be
compteted as of the date of this newsletter. To date,
(9'� houses have been demolished When the snow
melts, the demolirion contractor will be out to clean
up . the sites, which : will ' include final grading,
topsoiling, and seeding. The next round of
demolition will begin in mid-summer.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT UPDATE
Dumoster Hours•
The March dumpster availability dates aze Saturday,
March 2, 1996, and Saturday, March 16, 1996. As
reported fn previous issaes of the Buyout Update,
the new winter hours for the dumpster site are now
9:00 am. to 3:00 p.m.
as a reminder:
Hazardous Waste Disposal•
The property management team encourages each
homeowaer to be responsible for the proper disposal
of all hazardou's materials. Plet4se remamber that
hazardous, materials cannot be placed in the
dumpster, nor should these items be left at the
property site once a homeowner or tenant has
vacated.
PHASE III: ACQUISI'TION AND
RELOCA"d"ION
Offer Uudate•
As of Febraary .23, 1996, the offer process for those
homeowners in Phase III is 94% complete. Sixty-
one (61) offer meetings have been held, with ffty-
six (56) homeowners accepting their offers.
Depending on the individual needs of each
homeowner, any or all of the sixty day time frame
may be utilized to accept the writtea offer. Once
the written offer has been accepted by the
homeozmer, WDSCO will�schedule :he acqaisition
closing date to take place within �(30) days.
�. ' W. D. SCHOCR COMPANY, INC .
5844 28TH Av� SOU�i
..:,JM���EAPOL=s, l�l' 5541�
-,(612)724-8898
(800)250-7062
Acquisition Closin¢ ti�date:
As oF February 23, 1996, there has been a total of
fifty (50) acquisirion ctosings conducted for those
homeowners in Phase IIt. The acquisition c(osing
process for this phase is 77% completed.
RelocaHon Closin Uadate• (
As of this February 23, 1996, issue of the Buyout
Update, twenty-four (25) Phase III homeowners
have close8 on their relocation homes. The Phase
lII relocation closing process is now 38%
completed. As of February.23, 1996, twenty-two
(22 ) Phase III pmperties have been vacated. The
Phase III vacating process is now 34% completed.
FUNDING
Many homeowners are wondering when we are
going to proceed with Phase N. WDSCO is
waiting for the go-ahead from MAC. MAC is
waiting for federal funding to go through for sirport
improvement projects. We andcipate that the
money will be coming through within the next
couple of weeks. As soon as we hear any news, we
will inform all homeowners.
BUYOUT FEEDBACK
Q. If I do not agree with rcry written offer, and
refuse to accept, is condemnation an
altemative?
A. If a homeowner is not happy with th�,
acquisition written offer presented to them,
the first step is to work closety with their
WDSCO team to explore all possibiliries to
resolve the problem regazding the offer. If
no agreement can be made regarding the
offer, either the homeowner or MAC can
choose to proceed with condemnarion
procedures. This should be used as a last
resort effort, because the condemnation may
involve costly lega( fees, which aze not
reimbursed to the seller, for both the
homeowner and I�1AC. The homeowner wiil
have no guazantee that after a lengthy court
procedure, the dollar amount will exceed
their origina! acquisition written offec
.. _.. _ pr�serted• te-them,.- .Alsa, relocadoa �benafits
may be affected.
L-=.:,.__.—..,—�f 1v—'�%=!.--'J �
.s:a::.. • %.,.q,.� .
/.: `� A� �,.=r-_..-.__ _=
� ��'~�';,.�r�.:..a����,;E,:
ti l�, G. ' f;5',I.} � 4:
\�MN �:t. ,-:'�:'�---.4.�... 4iK
Tom Lawell
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Hghts, I�IIV' S5118
( a
i i
�
9
°
Mwwa�o�orwa� e. rer.rr�f.e..�..
I�TORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY AIRPORT RELATIONS COALITTON
The Northern
was called to
at 7:40 a.m.
in Sunfish La
Hohenstein; I
Sunfish Lake
AGENDA
MEETING MINUTES
February 20, 1996
Dakota County Airport Relations Coalitian meetin�
order by Sunfish Lake representative Glenda Spiotta
in the Fireside Room at St. Anne's Episcopal Church
ke. The following members were present: Eagan, Jan
nver Grove Heights, Steve Hughes and Will Eginton;
Frank Tiffany and Glenda Spiotta.
The printed Agenda was approved on a motion made by Jon
Hohenstein, seconded by Frank Tiffany.
MINUTES
On a motion by Jon Hohenstein, seconded by Frank Tiffany,
the Minutes of December 19, 1996 were approved.
The January 18, 1996 Minutes were deferred until the March,
1996 NDCARC meeting.
CITY UPDATES/DTSCUSSION OF DUAL TRACK EIS
The Eagan and Inver Grove Heights representatives reported on
their respective positions to tower.order language changes. The
Eagean Airport Relations Commission recommended to the Eagan City
Council to test the language change for negative consequences
with evaluation over time. Inver Grove Heights requested
clarifications to the tower order for an "ASAP" departure turns
after the three mile limit, though MAC claims this is being
allowed naw. The objective is to allow for initiation of turns
while in the corridor. Jon Hohenstein indicated that a 6 months
to one year evaluation timeframe would allow for a correlation of
flight departure turns based on the AMONS data and would develop
baseline data.
There was discussion of the objective to have aircraft attain
altitude as saon as practicable and whether Close-In Procedures
could be used with a change to 1500 feet altitude instead of 800
feet. Some factors involved in these scenarios were discussed.
Jon Hohenstein suggested that the Close-In Departures procedure
may be best so recommended trying to better evaluate its effects
as the Close-In procedure tracks higher and may be claser to the
NDCARC goal of getting the aircraft higher and sooner. It was a
recommendatian for MASAC to focus discussion on the procedure and
evaluate over a certain time period.
m
�
�
NDCARC Minutes: February 20, 1996
Page 2
Jon Hohenstein summarized the City of Richfield's position to the
4/22 Extension. He pointed out that the EIS does not address
increase traffic as well as a traffic shift. He commented that a
survey with 60 Ldn will be conducted bv the mediation group for
input into the decision. February 22, 1996 is the final date for
submission of EIS comments.
Inver Grove Heights representatives reported their city had
contacted their State Representatives bv letter to emphasis more
equitable distributian of airport noise and to recognize that
noise is an actual cast issue with the current and future airport
location. It was a consensus that all costs were not included in
the EIS and should be openlv discussed before anv decision is
made.
Jan Hohenstien recommended the member cities support the land
banking concept if the airport remains at its current location.
There was general discussion of broad issues regarding airport
relocation, traffic projection/capacitv evaluations, remote
runway, hub use/destination, maintenance.facility location, NW �
non-commitment to the studv pracess.
NIGHTTIME NOISE/SHOULDER HOURS
It was reported that the MASAC Operations Committee is receivin�
updates on Nighttime Noise/Shoulder hours.
FUTURE MEETINGS
A�enda topic: to prepare for MASAC recommendation re:
departures prafiles.
The following meeting scheduled was confirmed:
a. March 19, 1996 at Inver Grove Heights
b. April 16, 1996 at Eagan
Jon Hohenstein will send Glenda Spiotta anv recent mailing list
changes.
ADJOURNMENT
The Northern Dakota Cities Airport Relations Coalition was
adjourned at 9:00 a.m.
,. .r : ,,,.;. - t , ,
, :�r 3
'�t• r�t:j�', i;i,' .
•:j, jtj� .).
�� �t ;. �i t `:�:' ':��; +�}: . •i2i:.�., :�� � r r. � N : ��.
'tiii sk3t�3t3ti�3���`££��#������2i��43is�s��2S�tr��������#�a3��1'e£i�ssf�3���3�`s��}i$s��2it?3:�3:tit�si�s'tt4�sd3s.�3.�f�i�,�4�#�f3ks�s�2#{:.�"s>#��#�E#�'#��#���s&+ �� ����`#�� ;t�� �� Z���2 �������� € �€}' ����2f#��•
�� �IC ' . � �`��_ `�� t���'�'��r`����;�� � `�,��� ������2��'�`
. hfield bla�t� Il�AC env6ronrnental st�dy,,_ k �};�� �<�� ,; ;� �::>J �. .. ' ,��
The city of Richfield has criticized the Metropolitan Airpoits; '
_ Commission (MAC) for a"biased and incomplete" review of.ttie� �
environmental effects associated with expanding Minneapolis-St, �: '
Paul International Airport, . . , .
The .commission failed to anal �
runway and has produced a" rossl ze a new northern parallel�
g y inadequate" analysis of.tfie;
environmental effects of the airport expansion, said Steven Pflauin, ;
a Chicago attorney representing Richfield on airport matteTs.
Richfield Mayor Martin Kirsch said in a news.release that "there
is nothing in the draft environmental impact statement that�su �
ports a�orth-south runwa as bein ��
Y g preferable �in any way, shape'
, or form to a north parallel Funway. The decision to build a n„�rth-. �
soufh runway right next to Richfield, and away from Minneapolis; �is�
politics, pure and simple."
Nigel Finney, the MAC's planning director, said the commission'
considered a northern para11e1 runway addition at least twice.'In
both instances, he said, the commission chose the north-sout�i � '
� runway as the best expansion option because it would ope'r�ti�°: �
better in bad weather and because it would send most noise. over:� � I
commercial district.
Ciry Manager Jim Prosser said the MAC further failed td: ac�e- Ij
quately report how building a new north-south runway vicoiil+d.: �
affect noise levels on east Richfield. -
`���' Finney said the commission would su I , K ?�
�.��3 ..;' Richfield wants. pP .Y �Y more informa't�on: ..�. - � - , _ . . "'` I,
' � — Laurie Blake � „� � ` '
.. l�Aww. iP.*��r,�e� ti�1'f'0 �'1,a��9iMr�i /�w���w 'o J".�_;'s. I�
. /�iAM���\�Qi�9•�:: �
............... .... ... ...........e�., _..... ........�..., ........ �._.�.Sl, ..t,.e.�,.� . .....�.....,...�.........
i.
{ 2� �y�SS`t �i�} �45 f tyZ � 2f#( �{} 5� . � . 2� y. ,� t 7. r S� y � i?y � �. ��2 , �� r S� � } ) � �� �! � � i i� .
�t } tir { i�� {s�� t ir �. j ��Y�{�� ) t ti�if� i�� � t j�. �� ti .r. t tt2� � �?f � � i � � t f� �y r �( 6 2 . s�
,r, <� >' � .1 ..�2 } 4; 7 r 1.6 . f � R.� 1 s
, , . . _ . . , . . . . . . . . . , . � .. . � � . . � � . .. ... . . ..
' .' i
C
C
�
___--------�-��-"__
� � •� N
F� � V
� � � �
cd
� � �N��
O
� �w p �
i.
� b0 p f�r
+J � �.+ .�
� � �b w
� �'�Q^ � ti'�
�b���
� °��'� �
� m a� N a�
"� � .r"+7 � `� �
�id yv
���� o ��
00�� +�-+
O
.—' Q+at-i.+'b i''
■/� � � � •� �
�•�' � �.O .
�P / .-y �
� 'S-�" i,d 0 O
N O � ''' U ,,,�„
� C!J dl �+�'' N c0 t�
�� 4J �p�� H �
. � .�� � SC.� � �i _ . - .•� _.�'.
� c� � � ,b�, E'�-+ v�i .-4 � ,
� ow� � `b .
on.�ow� a
� r+ .� � .b a� b � �'
� �, y +,, � ,., - y^ ,d cc o y .� � � 5 ,-� tn�+ ,� � � °? �
�� �� � � �a� � � o� o �s ���� � � ° �
�+ a� +, � ., ,� � a� a'� .� o� a •d
V' �' � .., � N � �,
a�i °' N U."� Q''.� � 0 ,� o v, �•.-� c'� ��� c� �' a;
■v � > ^-' a� � ,o ;d � � m � +� G � � y �, o bA� t�
c?��a�i�°'�'dw���� �.��°��'b'�� �
� Z ���� °�'�^�� ��O � � �,p.^" o `°�^d�d � p, o
o°b���000����'�'S'�����a �y.,�.b2
H�.� a� o y o o�... 't�'•� °�°; :d � N a� a� a,fl v,
c7w o,.� o°°�o.� o� a� o.� � w�H °� ou� �
Z �� � � � cC.-.��y� R+ �� ��, �'�•'�.y��.� N�i'
cx/��}"���++"�1N��'Q+' 0����ww�.yv �+"'�d�c�
� '� N +�. �7 � �+ � ^H" 'd V
'�+ � �n �-�+ •cC vi .t�d C� N V d�'" bD � id 0 co ,�C, �
1 ��' ,.d y � � u.i �" a��.+' �+ O...� O y v� �i
' � O t!� � s� �.� �� O a�7. � +� 'v .0 tn F'i �"
� �� � ��
0
, ' � < ti�t f
v r� ,'ti�i � tYy ��5's2y5 fiF fis � ttSr< c i� �t +.f
};��t #�£2��?�}��i �2F��fif=35 v��� I���{�2}}f>;riSf} i ��{S{ (
.'������?��.f?.Ff��..kKi;??., ,�fs??�32..�.� f< � �<}t�f . i+�i.
5�
I
�
C�
�
( �
;�;.',
,�
.7.. . . � '! Y�r � t- -„F .. .. . ..J..� .. .
letters` � .
g:yr �;;
,<N'�,`�, :.
� �`Y�.Public: of�cials shouldn't be short-sighted on dual-track.ait7iort.planning process� -
To the editor. �•��+• �+ '� ••' ! the need to meke a finet deci-,: controlled ,. •• ', Bnvironment. qutre tha�� developed, uiban- 'fairly compensated for'its im-
TLe dual-frack aiiport 'p]an- �;� sion..Policy teskers have ob-_-.(NOISE), I 9m conxmed that `�d ;ereas be acquircd for the ' pacts through a comprehensive
' aing procesa' invoivea oue of. •. ser'ved that tNe pubtic: wilt ap- ; the stato of Minnesota and the eone!iuetion of moro iunways. �; program , of eound iasulation,
:' � tho most important pubiIc pol-:,.. pnciate theSt elected .officiats' metropolitan region soem in• �'•Repoat the duel track: property value guarantees, ra
. icy and public works declsions being decisive. 'lhis' ie hua tent' upon Et3minatlng options Proasa' — When traffic de- developmcnt essistance and
• , the atate of Minnesota 6as 1'�e public will: be very crttt- now without ngard: for the liko- mand exceeds the capeciry of other tools ro encourege noisd
' " mede tn yeats. As momentum cal, however, if tl�e decision is tihood that actual exporience �e exIsG�g site, the region compatibility in a braad area
�. . butids to expend the curtent shod-sighted. wilt conHnue to outstrip the �'i�� not accept tt�e acquieition around the current ei�port .site.
.- �• eirport' rathor' than reiocaro tt `. Aa the mayor of Eagan end duai track essumptions. of devetoped - areas without e'ILi's is likely W cost 'many
;,': for reasons of ebst end conven= • presldent of ttia NeHoaat Aseo- . Tho � duet•track process ie �mprehenaivo' aaelyaie. of the pundreds of mi113oas of dollars,
�, ience, much is being, mada of"._cie6on . to Insun a Sound-, based on easumpJions tt�at aSr . ettefnativea. We will then neal ; which are also. not anticipated.
� ' ��• � tra�'ic will gxow very alowly ��,uso �more public 'funds to • in the duai-track estimates.
over the next 25 yeara Every- ntucly op8ons more diatant end Quieror aicplanes wili �delp, but
thing else in the etudy hinges moio oo3Ny then:.fhose•so hotly the problem wilt not go away.
on whethor that growth can be debaud in the duel-lrack proc- If the airport ie to stay and
accommodated on the current � todayc-• :: grow at its current tocation,
eirport's 3,100-acre sita If it'. 3. Preserve.' � the �•�Dekote Minnesota needs to eceept the
can, the ntudies suggest thet C.ouaty eiro — Unleas eIr traf- £acts. Air traffic growth will
expansion Ie the, cost-effectIvo, .fic growlh stops dead in tte ' exceed the capaciry of the im-
convenient altemative. If it irecke,,Minnesota nads a con- provements being considerod
cannot, the studies make clear Nngency plen. Presavation of et the cutrent site.. Futuro ex-
the need w add more rvnways e 8►ndied 8ceen field site cau pansion of the airport wiU re-
on property outside t6o current � 8�mpiished through lend quite moro lend than the cur-
airport boundaries. The dual- �o ngutation, thereby main- nnt airport 6es. Tho river val-
ttack cwst eaHmntes make no ��48. �e femily farms and .teya limit the dtrcctioas the
allowaaCe to acquin this land agricultural economy of the existing airport can grow. Pol-
or build thesa maways nor does �' �� Wa �R� eearch .luting tndusMies have an obli-
it address the sociel conse- �e � Srat' proserved eia gation to compensate the pub-
quences of acquiriag devel- Y� ago, thero wero prodia lic they impact.
oped areas aronnd the airpod dona � of , doom for Dakote I am disappoinud that ao
w aocommodate ib growth. ���5 ��B'which have not many pubGc officiais seem
Some would hava us believa �me we. Unless property content w make an yxpodient
that such e.;possibility is too �� ����� io devet- dceision on so signi6cant an
unlikely end too mmote to be oping thek fazms for other issue and dismiss it with the
part of the currcnt discussion. I uses, site preservetion wilt en- o6servaHon lhet they wii! be
believe that is very likely that sure the viabiliry. of the agri- ntired or dead beforo anyone
Minnesota's current leaders ���*�� �oomy of the aree Imowa whether it was a good
will need to face •this issue unless end until the stete needs decision or noL I am roasona-
again and vory s000. i� bly certain that most of them
The dual-track projections If you 6nd'it dard W believe will bo very much elive and
assume that airport �c wlll �e numbers above, I wouid proba6ly in their current ca=
grow by 65,000 operaGons fiom bncourege.you to took them up. pacities when that heppens,
1994 to 20Z0. The study admita �'.You fiod it hard ro believe hecause, We consequences wiil
that growt}t beyond that' level �hat ihts isn't a antral part of ,.be epparent qery sooa Be<
will requIm additional lend, �e discusston of 4�is issue, I' sides, retind, dead oi other-
runweys and costs. tn fact, vaf- agree with you. `� wise, that is no way for public
fic grew by aimost 7A,000 op- Even if lhe expansion of the officials ro meke a decision.
erations in 1995 alone. As curront airport can mcet lhe
duai-track apponents insist that etaro's needs for the future, it T'OM EGAN
one additional runway at the is essentiat that the residents Mayor of Eagao
current stte wilt be adequate to ���� by the eupansion be
meet demand, growth contin- _._.-----`�`y
ues W exxed projoctions: In �e._t:_:,,,1,�.,.�1 ..a..--�- .-
fact, traffic at We aitport must '
gcow Icss .ia thc next 25 yeara
than it he's In the last three for
the dual-track expensioa plen
ro work. .. ,
Can the current site absorb
significant growth beyond that ;
contemptated Sn the duat-track
etudy7 Probably not At least
the chances are thet tNe atate
needs to anticipate �one of
throe opHoos over the next five
to 10 yeara: "
1. Buy east Richfield — 7f •.
traffic growth conHnues at -
even a modest rate, expansion
at, the cumnt airport will rc-
C
,
�
<
0
c d � W
� N W m
d
m a m � o
a u a W w
a» m c y
N N � � W
n�'v�o
a' �"'� ,�v�,
�w.��
�
��V
��oAo
�w���0
a�a �
�
�
.�
W
c
m
E
m
L
U
�
�
m
0
a
X
G
C
z
�
l,
-;~'�'J,:•::.
�',ii�.'ii. .
dw �.a .tci d:' �.�""'o ,3' '.d� .•��mt°• � ,
�.� �t o � ��� ��� E•� � � I ..,� �� � �""w.� � ��'�'a � �. �~ �
�v a •• y? °o� �° yYl� :;.� �' �o .�'"" r. S .� g ac��' °1 ��� �
' .`� g � 60' m d o� wg a+ y e.,� '° aw ���'° c� Q �y �.o� dp�„
�����y,u �E (�'�'�5��c!`�i obm��� `2�::o.6�oa�� �o'o.gBp���a���6
,o�� �'"r`°a.�y�' `°n.o�a,�m �H�'��� � �mao�� ���o �� � ��b8
� �'ma� w oo.d �wp... 8 �' 6° �y
.c�3 a�� ti '� d �'�-o' �+.. r� °°.e
''°�8�'�>"�w. "�" R'da��a� �H8 �°i �°„�o� a.q >�,'L.'tnq�o�`�'�'g��ba�,i�a .
d.°3"1.3� �Y��+ u�Q �a,o`�i.a���m��� �$o, cmi��.t���p>',��oJ �'�a'�m
'�^n � ��� m�� �i � m ��� $.,'sf]'�$'� ��� �� °�� $�� u.��� v��T�" �� �� o `a7.�a
>, m ��a�i�a+moo� a i..y r.'�' 8' a�E$ > o
>. � �_. E �� d 'C,� � °1 a.• .8., w ��'k�, S. ,3
°w'�a.°'�'�i��'C'g��a�dd��. vw"�„��„om,� �g''°��w,ao"�E�'gBm�Q'��y�,�, � �a
r. �� a � g v � v^� � v w �u � 8 �'4�n m. �' � �•, 'C � � �,y.
�oe w�`�«.� �[�t0�to53o�a'"i��a� '�������gq�����. ��'�,,,,� �.�'�
�.a,�oWm... �''6. o�.�oa"�$ q�P' v• ,� �• `� a�
d .o o w y q w 8 a m' =y ai �+..... M a d v u d
���,�o��� °°�2��?`�Y'��o9c�,P,�������6'aiaw�°>'8��`dma��p��d,C�`d�p
c.�Gy m �pp'�7}� � dp m�y o c3 io u n�i'a 8 vi'r7 m y^� w w'�i o o^Sa yw P,,+ o o 0
ODr�'1. � r7. V .'�. a 3 .r�Y W O..'q. O .'g. `J +R.i .0 +'9 F�J � � W .� 1» � � �'O .d i. .'q O.� :..'T .� GL
. W.,,,- , -.
o E
ze
o$
m s
`m N
m
°� �
w„ •
`o �
�o
H � N
0
4°PO?
� wo�p �yy��!Noo� � �����a� �=�5 �o�°� �yy(������w
... Z � �� O d� a�. � ��"� Nb.� � N.i �.3� � � ..+ N�yM':� p^•B W ��f ..� ........_. .... ...
. W� ;�,`$o'a a �m��$'"�� ���j�.��� .�o�"� �5.�� caW'��a�f� ,
�V �o�o. �y�� �y.� ,`�' o...��ym� 'fn�. `�� o�, No��,� '�
� "u3 �'° � � �1 v'�n �g � o � � w a•� �i � �� � a �=v � �'� �,$ � �p m
1� � '�9 � � u `� a� � y 25 > �a � �'� i° d.� w � �n y n'3 � 6n�
v v� w `� o d a� �� QH co c > �' d w.. �
p.°•2 °' y���g� � 8 a ��o u�3 ��o 0.9g � o y��+.��. � S.on �°'�.��
o wutima,. o���Qm BS � �X3o�oo...� �9'���3"' 'n'as^yt`4'.'�'ob�����
� w� .«. ci v;�... Q �: 'a� o' o �' kE' a 3
�c�i�� �'°'na'��cCf��dv���� ����36°.�d,��.� �m��� �Q�o^'ioB`����aix*�3
� v'y a a .. Q
�.°�a w.� a a�i y v d� �7 �g o o.a Cy m B�p �u � u >. d °' c'� ��' a c'�s „¢ry
�y�+ .�y N.'3 ���a+A � �p��• N .O W�g y d ��� � N� fJ O �y ffi ttl� �
Bd`�°'�y�u,e��u'��:q�y} °`,�'s8ro�g 60 °����x°Cm�v 'O$��o b��p&'���'"���o
�a 6.«.Awmy;.^. .g o,�"�bbo�+.. Yo � W �.. y.. �.r>, 21rn
pa��o'���ao�:�vu8�'.`�0�`��0����oT��T�n'gi�Q� g.'.�'��,s.'� b��.�'��•�.�.���uaN�
�V.�.�Rm�o�=d�aa��°'���.�����,�����vm ��'-���`^�P►d��a���o.C�����
Q25 y Q p p
.°J.$E8G»o6'w�oa.u~'�ov�B.B c..a.BJ�'a� 8u@a�i 60 •�`�,.��� `8'....'".60'� :�S.u6bbra�
m m �p .Ls, E e '.3 .rs
''k. � ,�c,� c�s�"rs�0ceo t�.ni��,j e �m =tWw
' Q'.� m_ m � 16 �O Ce "=«vo_ a m E a.u� -.
'o_ ,��d eD o� ��m�md�i� �-Em_m«
a_$. oEv��� � m ec i' op,'�TaN�/1
a,4 , o ��'� E m N E c o s m 9 c E v m� _� tn �� L o
.� mmomEom c�i��timmW tL-mm$€- 2' t-
��viaci w$ � m m S,ra cc s E3mr-m=a ■r.�i ior'oa�ni0.
� �w� �.`°a� ���a� oax� o�a.��T'� �r`°.�8'"���� ��s' ���a:°�''7
5r !q ��y.+ Q1 � �
,�p oav�j a�C� �W oy�y ��'�� BX.r� .r�NOG v,�a`di� �'�•m •�• .'�c��oo•�
q0� � O.�d "' •v� �'� W''�'�' p N � 0 i�..'Q Q� C7 'O �`'9 q•'J' A ai �� ' N
(^� �' s yA �..+ ow q�iS o�'' ,�yp"':7WQ�o�g`% �a
N��q''�''�'1,,,'wti �wc�y.W� •�dt0� '�����p���A��y�.:7�dd.Gu''�'O ����y�
O o o� W�p•�p tl G Vs'�,C p i�++.' L� d�,C �w V p� �� � b�Op�'d0� �� p p 6�i. ��y'"
O'LI O � p .CI t0 ❑ � Ip � p >.o � d � �
'�� �..utl. �c`� o d� W ��� uoE � �.� � �$v R aEi ° u ���'��r � � � � ` �q•�$ �'�
�.v �� �3`°� �ovc`°i u�w yy�,°�, m�$� �m ��� y�•���= � ��'�
� � �,�� «'a� o •�,a °my ��� � u Tf � ��'P''� � � ���.P�'� �4a `� � Q'� �'•>�-� �'�
�,��6 �'�d o'�aa;9 6 �E a'q ��g �3w�$Tl� � $4u�'�.gi�
�,g �u�.� a�wCa �w�❑ �� � m� i�o3�' ,3ai ��' m o �" °'�
w y ���� �Woo .ad� �s..�o�.,o• �3�.�i' �a�7...>,�s `° �� m,aM.�'H...
'��+8a�•~•- � �^� �.:�"'� .: � �m...❑ >o� 8 �'.. J..
S d '�uo you:-o
v o ay� � a'�� a.3 w 80 �+ m» °'3. +��+� B mJN � o"o�� $v �� o�g� `� ���m;�W���
�:� �na.�°�g�� ■°'�aooccya aF.cao� �>�~ai��'" O�N•�+�y'��a� ^Q�� �ai2ipma
G •.� o w�o q m M o. o^ � � �
J�i �tC� uvw Xi:�w... v.83.8 .`�.S��v3« .'..sc`�.o....�.00.. rov� o.�:7Ei
�i'+ '� �2.°a rn�os;: ym� :9 t°� spa`a� �0..°1, �o�C ��d�
�Y z c ��.� .��..� Q�'.� a� 3 y c iu '6�'vov y°�o �� �.w. ��'a o'�'�°' °'
Z<� �' ��o� �9o.c.8y�, '° .� o �5q� om y�. d oo �
O'� o � v a � m�v � o.S c`� .v ❑� o y� �� S yZ� ���ay7v�
��u o`�>m °daQa �>, .9 I a ap..". �°. �"�•'� ,a��m
F � � d
o�.
�� _ � �a �� � �� a�'�4 a� s' a.°� 9 � `�a�� o,�v � WS b^� �
� � °''� �� ��O C q �� u c. �� � �o o� o � Q»3 '�'��G�
oy �' p1,'".�.o g..��. � o�` � ,�°�,q � ° � n'"„� ��$„ 5 •'�°� � a,'oa.� pw.. & � �
�� m'd' :�,�.., � d �' p ; d o, � � 8 �
6n iio'"mv �� �M3 ,m B?�'��,�m"'Gce� o 3 �°�i».q `� d a `I'
Q A pa ( p .O� O �++�H
m E.� y�wv � o���°: dpw„ �,�a��� qo o., '� d 8i �Q,''�' �� �� `�...� o �� B� Q
w,.. U P� a qd �S o. 'CJ�+'ca o... �� a�«. o ��.o �o��.,q�
$ �a�oa N 5.� o..t aS3 " u � m� d �.� ��Q~ m d �• n. � c3
q'��`�°� � 3� °�qv'a y,7,a°.1 `� ���.$ �.3 �p�a0'o a�{+�p c. d� a a�i �A.°n m� in�
�y a" N� q ir i. d G �,~- •_p� �,�CJ. �s� W �W +��- �y q a eq w.r p{? {r � �.7
� a.� . o W � O w��. �� p p O. N.�' �'C d p5� n�� N ND' CI.G 4_,� ltl .'.7 W 4�� tp..Q. � b$ U7 �^� ty 4. � d�j �j �,� �
���.oi..�v�....� a,�...o � � ndS� � � ct� ��a s d .o
m.� .`� o� � o'�,v�5�� ��•E.� � $� m e��u 0��1,�� �p ,�q � o.d � ����' : y �: y a� �Caj: �p a�: ���:�ww
i_�� d��...��N W �.S.I�'�0�.'=I. Sg. B.9 E 'OH �.'�1AN'.a"S. .�� A~� '..Yi � w W A O.w� .�N � O � 1�
- ' ' .�•.A..^ '".__"'_'_'_.__.. _ .. .
;;��?:t
r: ��' ,
����r.� . :v'C•'.
... � `v%c!�.'�
.....A.
...: ^ ...::., .
................ {.
:.T a
. ;ux�=,u, .
�
C_
C�
.�
N
�
O
�
O
N
'a
�
0
Y
3
O
Y
V
f�
.Q
�
�
�
N
�
�
V
v
�
W
�
�
O
_
N
.0
1--
G
tB
a�
a
m
a�i
c
c�
a
.�
C�
�a0
c
a�
�
nn
c
.�
Q
o •�
�:
n�jp J
� �
�^` �
W �
� •�
O C
c y,
� a
o �
uu �
C C
.� .�
.c cv
c
0
v
� �
�
�. �,
� m
c �
bn �
c
m n.
c �
L
�° o
� Z
N �
�
N
•c
�
'c
0
c
�
3
�
N
t
H
m
v
�
�
�
H
,� = ii
a '= m vi
o N � �
v 3 � � �
� � � � o
. .� C � o � �
� '� c°ri � o 0
a` o.� n o a
w � �
� E � c
.� v� •co
.
' • i N a� m '�
; � � � � o.
� Q. 'v o. ,�
� _ C O
�� __� a � X� � 2
_ ¢ m s '>
ti
�
a
�Z
0
a
6
�
�
■ �
m
h
N
W
V
ti
0
z
s
4
W
G
� �
C� ¢
W a
� �
Q
A
w
s
•
•
�
a�i � b ai `� a�i � � .'��a
'D C� � c�C �b�!! p ~ �l cSf
..�'S- � � +�a ra -r.'' � p �
y � N y
�i.�i �. � -� .0 O � y
'F''� � � � C�C�V
b�„�,� Rj •�.� p � i.. +�
.Ci •� � � � � .Ci CSi O �
d a
�'a� � �����
� � v�, a�i•`ti a'g'�� �
v, a, � � � o
o,%�'�c � � ��� yNC�
N a�i O .s3 ,�" a'� � � �
� 'O :u .�'r'�. '✓a y 'O V]
c� g c. «t y y �
+•'� `��+aw � � �a) �
� A'c ��'c a � c�vEC7
♦
m
tff
O
w
�
z
V
�.
0
a
�
a
� �-'�a � C� � p .L7 C�C � �
�� � y Q O d U R�SIr �� y''''
q�p� !�"��d��"'„��N �i
c�,�..,���_ooao�,
�a��.a��a'�,����
o c., y � a� � .
.G � t.. � 'O .�.. N R7
C� O � p�p�0 � C� � . ,.,, �
� � ��� ym O �..� � 'CI O
i�l
C� %1 � Qi L% �
Q� ��1 � ��'y � ��
�� � a.(N/� � a% yl r� 0�
I'i� � � � � Q � � � QI�i1
.ct � � +' a'�i c�i `� .c��w � � � �
d � a�
�o��'ti,a `"�a'Hv�
ao �
,�'�' °' � � c� `� � .a' �''j ~ y -�
.Q
���� ���F���
� �y �, ""r .'Li�. a'i� O �� '�.' � .-^�i
CSS
.� G c� y �CO .�C r'�..� � 'O �C�
o ��vab s
-� � �o�a'�
a "' � o.
o Q .o � ' � � .�
0
.� � p�V��
� � � � �.�.� �
� � .� -��o.caa�
� � H�, a� �:�
� O� o. A,.� � a�i o
^ � ~
i�l � '� � •g � � �
� � ,ago,cio.yo
�
Qi cw��`� u>a
4) � '��� �'� � �
u a� E o a� ;� on
�. � '�U C � "yb � .�
� �
�
.
•
•
�
.
•
�
•
�
�
�
a
�
�
W
a
0
0
� L, � ,� � , y 3 . - - - --
. � : �' � I * F
a:) , �
��.� �... � O 'A) ., 's3� E�l� «T�' ..........� ti,�.y ,"�"�„�.�'4�, � ;�Zr _ . .. . . . -ri � � . . 'C!
_ _ .
�
C
.L i T---�
I *T7�
-��009-0,0��
�uauzcimb3 �8
say�ol� nIS
fu�uno� sso.z�
- �- .i i r u .L�J \�J.L 1V(1 Cr �[�,�� �tI.3�
0."�`• � OOS£-6£L • b6-1 uo --""""'
f W£ 3� 3 sa�iw £
� +� � � 1 � „•ss�a�S anT� uTqarn� �Iin9 aq �fecu
; 4 `; ;t;�: � � "� 3t PuH 'aeaif siqa Puet �uiamb��
.. ` .'. �; ;as�s itrm d � d
..�",,.,_.,.�;.,_;;..,..rt-,..;�;�....�.-.s;._-� -_ ��
�': `�:. U� asoo uo `.�1
ieYSads p
�}�ady wox; a�LS u� S o9
o�japo� � f ' �
.�- u� �,�oa��'��
`�1�iI�idS 30 11IJIS H S�,Lj
Noizeanaa,
�
�
���
.'.
� '
0�
suoi�euiwou pb
• • • pania�a� an,ann �aaM siul
................
�Ge�uawa13 a��i �I!l
NISN88NOId
SS�Id?I��t�i0id
'v�.l� eUOo�yv
'�t,u�pbr aa7
000s-zza
',,�; '
J` ��t .
. a
��
����:�
���
��
"r EYY
r�w4:�C:.+
'uo�.�euiwou
soaay siy�
�eau o� I�LEt►►
021�1a ��nFiaiv-,
Iq qoa aAA„ Pi�s �fau �
-ur,� „'atqissod s� uoos s� �i piinq
�ur�Ses uo}�utuxooig pu� stiod�
-auary� ;o saiai� aua �o� an,aA�„
� •uors
-siuzuzo� s�aod.�t� aq� ao; aauuejd
,�a?u� `�fauut,� Ia�it� pT�s `suoisinua
uetd aq� a�qa aa�l�inb q�nui acuo�
;� �f�uz `�seat �e 'aseqd asac; aus
'OZOti so3 Pauu�id st `apis asaen aq�
-- � o� apTs �sEa aq� uzoa; a�u�a3ua aaod
-ai� uceui aq; �'utu��Tms pu� Ieurcu
-aaa niau � `as�qd puo�as aqy 'OTOZ �
�q pa�uacuaiduii aq o� pa��afoad :
si `teuturaa} �ui�sixa au; a� sa}s�
�u.rpaeoq Mau awos pue �femuna
q�nos-q3aou n�au � �uipni�uc °�saT; .
aqs '}uauzdotanap ;o saseqd o,�i� .
103 SIt�� sar�ua�� oaaa[u om; aqa
�fq panoadde usid uorsusdxa aqy
uaaa� paq3s an � a( oy� �aa�o�u�a
-peaZ ,f�iaofsy�) asne�a9 �q�iu �fep
-uoW tliq aq� �ur,�eaq aae aM„ '�ut
-va�;os aq �fecu dtqsaapeai aq; �fq
uoi�rsoddo �eq3 paaou al�puoy�
-pi�ap sT anssc aya `a3on e o� saiuo�
ai 3? oS 'asnoH aqa at O6 aano itan► ��f��s�i
pue (uoisaedxa ao;) aooi; aaeaaS
aq� uo sa�on �5 ase aaay� xviq� �
I . . . .�aodaTe n�au � pimq ueq�
saq�sa puedxa o� aa��s aq� pu�.
sar�t� ur�►Z aqa ;o �saaa�ui �saq aq3 .
ur st ar 3ey� ap�ui uaaq seq ase�
au� aE43„ `PaPP� al�puoYli ,�`�Pn�s
;o saea,f uanas pu� �oitit� pT$ �ui
-puads aa33� �►o� s�ai� s,�r„ �ng
axau itann a�on ��E a o sea�f
as�ou �S i P a 3uen�
q paaaq3oq aa� oym �aod
-are �utasixa aq3 a�au saaumoauzoq .
�ut�uasaadaa sao�ejsr�at auxos �
•pa3�rpa.�d aj�puoyti „'spunoa�
ieanpa�oad uo iiiq ay3 IIIH o3 �fa;
Ilim oym asoq; aq IITm aaa9,L„
•�aam �xeu asnog aqa
�fq dn uaKe� aq Itim suoiaepuauz .
-uio�aa aqy •aa��tuiiuo� sain� ay�
oa sao� uay� IIIq aq,L 'ptes ajepuoy�
`�fepuoy� aaet a3on oa pa3aadxa
sr aaa3itutuo� a�euas aqy ',{�p�oy�
aeadde tir� ii�uno� �ayli au,L
�It?9 au� 3o aou�n� `xaea smoZ 'aS
-Z3Q `aiepuoy� pay •uas ptes `uoou
-aaa�� aua ar aaasi pseaq aq Itten t::;€;€r;<:;;?:;i:
�Tiqnd aR� pue `�fepoa suocaepuacu . . � ..
-uzo�aa s�c uo �f;iasaa tirn� uoissrur •
"�uo� s�aodate aqs •saeid uotsued
-xa �uiauacuaidtui ase3s o; �f�po�
e i woa� oanNUNoo .
-paa; paiq aeau aq�rj�fep ui �ui;unq
aae �faya �eq; F'^.o3 so3 a3e.radsap
os aae sin�o tea�oq pres uoslrM
6
. • ' ,' ( I? � . .
r f � �"�'�'��'�
! �V F
�.,..-� _�",�.i7 , �
�S'" �
���� °iy�d m. �
e
�� aT � � t°� � �
a�i�w�'o�°~�°.p3� � i:
>ca..��� °d' ..
p1Oov�,�°�d .n
ge�'��^Oa4°� �
sr
>m�m�`���m'' .;.'�.
v����o"� �
0
v �m xd.';�.
a'�.o d p.. . o.
: E �� g�t�°���'a � .
;��i�3�''�' ,g�'U'" �.
��m3��ra.��w���. ��
L.o ��3�d �'�.o � ``�i' �„v
a�.°c�'�����g�';..�� ,
: g 6.� ��� a�,��. �� �
'$,�°°�� "'�,° �'� I 3'
.5
�_� ^
,��-::.
;��=:�
<:::�£.:
::::�;;.
-:��.�..
.�. :_���:
��:�
:�-��:_.
�, . �,� . � u. w.0 b
�N?C? bq N �fy p� N TJOd'O T v N'u" 1 • a.
'�qR' O/ }W w"7"�'bt d:C:N'iJ! ai.�". gTJ'.'�f
FH�a'"� 1� � �'��� � c. .�' 3�a."'�-w�m�+�°"��-o°/ou°'S-.�o�•°"v�-°'' :',J'.''ay.`�'•�•`3's�' '0'`•��-�.,'; (•..
�.� •�a•$.0 � owQa�9 �o6�'owM.G3�m°: '�Sv »,�v.::�3�3�c'rJ-�u,.., t:
������va�d�+o�dm$�o ��4Cc,c�95�,Q��U ,q p�c �� y_ _..
y`°3°wm�'wao�o.o. �w� a. c'°ovd�- °' �°' o y°'J '"°'i°�
4�'�p'y'°°�'�vp�cc°»y� �`v'g"°'�3''Z"�i�"�qio .c °iuc�c» w°°�4
� °o�mCuo�> �ddom�. yydo;a"y m,�aor�...a,e... �5r�. � m}u 4 v
/��� Eaiz'nc��o����•�q�`A�.cy v�c.°ie'c'�o�c.idv°�����a3�om�Z�,�,�[Omqm.C� �
W �,,�„ � ia N„''t% �w-C C 4m,a �... y N^ NT{ �� ^� �l7 [ a"''� �q ai'y F u.� � ic C�' HJ7 pb �.
� ��4��'��o��z.c?:G.cmzu q��=m�°Eo�w�voaco°.S; c°��c3�'o°0
v v� o�yma�� v� -� � h��.°.::�a`i-'v���O'�va2��a",��$a�a�m'� c.
�oca o wahHE`u 64: �m.`°_.5�r>.BmwmUa'"i°�,-°c �c� oN.�°G� �
a` '�M'Sr?.��;.O�N4,w,�,•-•�yu�-.�.v. ;y IObR Od^?OUN�' .,C Ow�O`VO Cp�y
� w C 0'O S'C'..N. Vi ayi ��p y•.. `�,!� � `�'Q � G b^�` �� 4 m[ a> O ro aui C G C 4 T7 y^�D al'x C
'o �w v r.yay �_ 3 ai r o'^ �`" C Gp.R_ �: n �OT, 3=y^�.c?'�= �' �
� ����my3���n_'c:do?'o : ¢.�°'„�E�._,`,v��"'m"E..CCo �.�^'.'u��C��C.�y-� �
!� y�.Co O'C�CwA � C'r c� �(�. CODOou ,'.nrciv ��n,,,LCLy_ . O �? "'
CO�. G` M, j� N v•- .. ._ ^} Vl O N 0i G � ���7 4" C' vi V'
= .G'-"'°a'-' � r.,c,^c�o mw �==a m an� "i� .a,.'�'Q�' _�
er .•�m L� E•�:�c. o�u� vm - my.:�m���'=25icA"a o o
1� d 0 .: c a! �... d � • i ^ tt.o�C nt " >.-� �O � ,,, .tOC .0 V t, -. = C u ^ >"'Lt a/'�`- � ;�+ . •� 't! w '�'7' 'c7 •tj N � �
3vc �3og3o..o._ Gb..» .. v•.-- •�a? d°' u �
�o.'�='c'Sy'o�C�CR.CC�C����p�i �+8'�su7a"i3wq�ma�io?�^�"�w�,�+_,��' O
� oa�3vt0 .n°� iovve�•v�o.o�C�`�3�� �m3Q3.:�op'�m.-� ".-°my °o��'" 3
Ax.no aoc e— o d y.e oo u aau�a �d
2oq�vz8�vzmEG..�°., v.s5 �"�3"u'�wm�Ca��'o$4iy'w� �' "�a c '0601 C
�8��88:� w.°:'.a�a'>o� •�o's�o°��o�oy�y�ooa ox--`�>y�-�3„�0� w
� �,.,��uo�a�...v 2 za... 2«.2 o3m� aav.9a 8w° °o �
- og� omm v m� aom�.. � �
� y o m... w� Nq O[ N>.�:p..� � G � O a'Oi w� u'" � w al y �[ C1.0 �.n y " N?.,!, N.�y
C y' .�. ,d., Ci pp�0 • ttl N�vi Y C g O W p O! N y O� ,� �� Ol •.7 C 'C �. tC b!
w Tl ry T N Ow Px' p� � O G.� �. • O'JC� CL N C �z.0 Q u��.�.Ci � �.C� i'7
i. d �v �_. a m'v x o'3 0...._ a, �.n - � m z 3� d> >�,,; o,
�o3y°..�...o°' °ti=E��ov�amC�� `"muq° °3 °°�09•� �m� 3,�
� a,`',�r�om�°+mw° o��oc>az,"`°maioE'nv �ve.5.5.�'�°1xa°=avi�ov ��6'°' d
� 01�a>ro�`°�5� �w�z�c.°�o� $ �ao, om�qnow3�a�"o���w�o�o����i':�
.c ^'a� ro [ m,C � e x
� d a� 'L'i'"�yu� yoiyat C�wm y y��«G'nq'G '�y �.�.�O.Du"y ��yp,�„�TO m ��y��
0 0�: � H- 0„�•8 �'��.�.5 0,;
/�+ m>°� e'...e.cV�mya�33 �E �pO^b 3.°'c°'C �o"iod•,yccCCwg"3oa�i3�`"9a�
r,qd�'�'mo� �.o c��ub$mu,a'�� mao,cos�wvw> o...-om.x �wav 3
_'dova3iw'timUdcCO"�w"roo�mou��'�bp�a.> �'cm�"o��°caroa.omdw�o��ov�`"�
'8x.tya['���o'Aoo Uy �a�c'=a�.n �m'mo coH �� a�.�� [,� �o
� ��amo d��y�'�aCroa�oC�v � w c+yao�a�dv��d...o,°�,y�� �u pz
��y'�w �C N Oi0C00 0 �Oy �N u��y�ist uNLLaI y�ydYO
mc om '�.o.:U ��'rn��emy a�g $�d «,.5�'e�y,'�'.9�°'��ry po�-
'� � L" Ol �� N 3 V•U �L'f �„�,� .O Cr O y� p .0 Vl � �� 4� � G 4
d° `"�5000 ,�v�m�c� '� oo no�mv �'9N8��am...?;�°�r '�•�m
o ���u" �Owww C;j mOC��m�...c� �w�qq�a.[...�o«. �..mwc�w,c7� 'cJ
° z�v d� yvN ��ox"yd dw>�,�'"1y'�3@�O�y�>w� y'Om �po
d y qi ti �y Ol M .�' G•-• u r-, b... � 7� W t0 'CJ d if0 � U e
�.a'�.�y.J' .T" '" S''�S mb O�ai O�b w c� P, '� m y'�u � m �� �� q� d 3 8 ad q N
L+ G• [ q c� �. �.. m',t�`, C w qai �n q' q«� q � C Co• '• �
� '�a"�:9�`°a°i[�oms�v �.";vV�� °��6o��Clmo�o2u°.�'�ioo°aai�'•�'So�'o��o
°S�`"'�"��"""e'��"o6`�'°m��°��Eda[iazi�awo."v.m�om�ya�iz''3'¢m�y' avQ, v°�m
� ,� o ��: 3
�.�u g��uaw�+owvw 3 .5 �oa>uu�'-';;�ti"'o,c� �Gu� a'a $dmv�.. m
,oc.S �`j��a�,o"tsg rj'��'d'�va'io'�E°: °`3av3&°'c`°i��wa�•:°da[iv�a�a�iro���o
�.,m'c�� C7ous�a'�n wii.GOv:Babi�'G.�u: oo°,5�.'�c c°��ac°�.°..°'0°:B���Sv'�° 3'S,Qs`...,.�.9
� ��d °����'a �o�a°c�°o ''=�c�oo� .�rm. � m5mXSw.9'c..y�'.a3i ����aLOf,°c��u,p'��'.
,� � @'3uov,� m>„a�q ,C�'c�i.�Ga� �z�^°ciupH�q �S", 3�yv. m'
w �Oh«o.v�q6 raY°°'' O ud,°', °'5 �S�H'Oo�moiu,� v�`''� '�'°g'
� ,5��°1oo��a�,iu Ha°'`'�'°'��3''C�-o�O�S �v�s[�o,sm�o d���`d'�`xG.
' � . �V .+ O � N •� �'�Q �Of R! �b �� ,�y, N f.' V N '� . ��
��y�vzu g mc a�o oa'� o� m'9� �... d �'a��o
�. °p�r�. qo^',V,°'9 ",.G�"'[�.BS �qo�Ao �bzyMo��'��'y °iu�i �i. �
�. �z�..�° �z�t7�3'��'�'�aL:: �'oc°°�gm8�6q'° �o' n.dondo'�� ��^'!��~'�
a� vcan ��(�.'°m wC`° m° ap.°�'abim�.�5r.o�3M3Gop�2ey atIIi=���y,,� $a�� �'C��:
�a����G���R��tadG�l6/ td�'L''i'""'F..1ti.�'GOR Ow�QV��pNpCW.�W��..: �.
Op O O �i
aj�1.:' �.[ ,� a..o [ m� b y w o,n � c� � m p o J•
`�p, u cHw°qoc"c7�:�a,`�� °'� �oq«.owy�^'m'd'..8��53 w'$`� ��'
� .��H �'3 omw� wmo� y �n ��oh aa� 'q�
Q `�'y�a��m'"c,�Q eomro�'��'d�@aa.�o'a.`�c�°w'�3va°' �°'�'.��m�3a: t�'�.
� m„Qoya�no«:°' `�v�c...ocu;,ry...''� vo'�m�a�m�; y�. � mm
.,e�[u[d;d�E°°�� y�.a"�3rg�°qqm�,�,�g3 �:co�a �vw��:�y�`�'°od:5r����$.
'L c� �"H'�yN�a,��o~.��'�'8vo�q�b.����b"c.c+cpW�2��a�o�� m�6gy�mA'•m
•�o '@ o; m� 4. v�=� � 3� '3'3;� a�
� � Tq�7���a'.�om���o�„b,,q:9g;�,�,�°'��om�,cac��7"8ro"wa.�°"�$'`a3''"v�. �.
'° owvP. y.w�".. . moo`3✓Eb^�� .q d �dti �mw.maa"ic.q.°��d
'� � � o � '° ° $, � � � � g'� a'� `°'� `°'c 2 � � � �'S'`� �'� v: J' `� �'s" � x'5 c, Y.'a � � �' Yd'
Oa , � �i N�O �� �.a�,���a�ffi g(ny �'j,��'�'o�,o�a �:3 0 �"d w � °'r� °' w�''
m' a&E�3 �.: 6 w a�e ���t.°v' 9 c.' � 8.9 �x ���O'a���p°C�Ae..�' �"��E 3�y�
a ., p �.
. :. .. . -..---....._._.._»_..._._.._._.._. .. -
- ^� ����:. .. � ---
d o0
So : �aw.a�y3
'a:�' 'c������d
��� ��3' �.:
� � � .�y �'�w� �
ov{y; ,a � �a '°:°�,% m'C'° � a.cs d w
."gdG..:� .�y �'���T���:�,�� O �p.CJN N �
3�;'• ��a�.'q��^J'`�a'�[°[����
� � � � � d� w � W � � � � O ~ O � �
o °«io8 �� .e �
�'n',.� ��v:v�m � m°1 o d�¢ w�'>°.m�
�� C�o��� �oYv�000.���
�.g''¢3���2`�.0���'���a,Q'c7��>
� � �`d �'9 " � 4 0° �' �'d .5 z,.� � � v '� �
,v° ,r,v�c��a••�avmA.°c�.c°'o...
g;aj� 14 0�y_'A °' °', q H m''� .� a�, p°' °❑ o.�
"�it�, NF!'yy�pC�Nw•'� W N ~t..:
�•a �:�`��38-.85� ,'.caanin..o��
�>.q d�t°a�''o' �3�Rtmq� fa� ["" rawa3a ao.� .�`<
,�` v "� � �° t
� c.E+ m y.�"��i �o �v� o „�o,.. aw� ''�g i0 �a' � o�.�
.v a�y. � ���;� �C C'""m� � m y�+ c •� 2 no� u;� m�ry'`�d
��," �G.1i'� y�. O N ttl � �~ .0 p Y.e N O.� O N .��' ��.'q.
'O Y'i. y,u p-•?� c
�a�,�::'°�o°?�����m ��x°�.°nwu �� ��xmm'c�y5E'�m�a�
b m a�,�� p..+;o M� a�i^c.`d.'�°°.d h� u�` p,� m a�i.S'o"...t-� 4., �� v ao�a a
'�t`���'aavH�,a �y�3[,�••.•y �o at°iwdmc0/waiw°"°��Z'°
'Cly ��+C$M.$«. ^ C7 N�y > dtO.O�R
,o a .0 �,; w T
m.... e o v��,ra..,y � ma � '+ c„'},c v,�.5ra m.e
w�a,o°'"" ��.�� a>'E3� 'S�.�m ��a°,6b��v.5m '�o�
mc.rj. q'$o'r�. m [ o>^.�amw.eC°3a °a >vp�°3acti'"'.�om
N�•� �� p N d yg�� m� � O� N y�'7 �'ty �•�.0 N a�'i � N� S p•`� pi
A:��°'��y'`..'"�.�0 Y�'3�aiva",w°`�oTo��yo��5d'�d0GQ�.�
�°�T`w�°��qC�'�^ro�g'��m0000,°a�i„�wo'3q;a'm�'Ry'��
� `� s'a � " T �
�o,� v�aQ�•:���W� o� o,,, ,nwa �vd
w
a���a[•�Qo��9� p���a ��,avd.o��•��, a ��.9
af.�u'C da u.° � a° w 3„ �'� m m �� �o $� `�y"^;�
. o. �.,�;�bmo�a'�aa�c,doomm'5�ac,.cm3C•o���°�Mc3
.n v m �e m au 3:� en3 3� o ���+.
�"..�.w�.�q�`°m o�a�.jt�,�� uai[ vy `�3a4.a�dH
3 �;;c �' a; a°o, m� a s� .cv o d�a o a".� S' °''[ .� �.�.> y Y�' � v<.�� ;:
0 3:�'m 6'8 �•$- '•a, � a'�'� 8' .� '+.�b17 ° a',. �c��o�w u' �g
.... . � .. ,
w
�
6e
L.
r
i
C
�
_ -�
. .
- - -.- - - -r
. :
t �
; ByChrlsUnaBrunkhoret
�:Bvery weekday my hus ban d w a l k s to t he comer
:9idd catches the bds to work He rldes for 15 minutes,
Dbflvlous, as he reads the paper. to aU the cars
fostllng their way toward the Big Machine from
Eagan and Burnsvllle: At 5:30 he's back to clvilizaUon
agaln, walking down the sidewalk in his eult while the
kids run to meet him and I watch from the window,
rotaflng the marinade. You might expect such a
tranquil scene In suburbia, but not In the c3ty.
lNhere's the drive-by7 Where's the gang graffttiY
Where's the attempted abductlonY
•.In wtnter, when it's not tione-chill3ng outside, the
kids and I wlll cross the street and go skating on the
� }eke. My daughter can eMm along the whote length of
�fie.rink whlle I pull her toddler brother, who shtieks
wlth delight, back and forth ln his yellow sled. On sum-
mer days, my husband and I will adjust tratnlng wheels
and bike heimets and bike along the creek and azound
tioth lakes and back.: Sometimes we go to the park
where the kIds will eplash around tn thelr'water wings
at the pooL It's ldyllla It could be paradIae.
And yet, some summer evenings we'tl'1nylte:peo-
ple over, and we'll slt od the deck to telk. But befote
any of us can even comment on the weather, our
urbanlychallenged acquatntances from the suburbs
wll! suddetily hlt H�e floor, ashen Eaces turned eky-
ward, mouths agepe In horroi while we naUves, the
:jaded otologicat mutants of south Minneapolis, will
pause for IIve, six minutes; check the burgers or
'wafer the flowers or petform some underducks at the '
"'s,wjngset or maybe engage In a moment of not-so-
gytet reflection, unHl,the,plane;,thathelllsh steel
moaster that grabs our homes, oar llves tiy their very:.
fojindatlons and ratties. our wUidows:add bdnes;
passea. Then there w3!! be anothec Md another.
��C� CLt, - r%�� GU!�'c-h � � '
� y�
�� i n � c�� -..�i-c�' � r,.b
bV/:n{�� ...
ing:1'uere 1s aNntting llst for the kind�rgatten.',['be�=;
etuden[e ere some p[.the best In the staDe :. ��,Y.l' •=
SudBenly � e.pazt of ine, the sad ca1 part _
h"atct�edi4somenetherregIonofthe t'sidebfmy'�:
brain �by.�:Northwest Aidlnes, looks around.aC my.;
nelghbors, my fellow parlshIoners arid'thinks:;What;�,:
aie }rou, nutsY Don't you read the paper7'boes'a'-
plane have to drop oh youi houses? The.alrport won't:.
be moved. By the Ume we finish a new gym fot the;.
schoo! our houses wili be a Northwest tetmlaat;'the' =
Mlss(ssippl River w111 be rerouted and Lake Nokomis"
wlll be fllled in wlth disposable diapets and paved
over to accommodate another parallel runway. ThaPs
wii3t wi11 happen. We have no tuture here!
."�ut then my heart and the hopeful, bright side of
Yny left btafn says: Go for it; you wilt never 6nd
an.other community ltke this. Md 1 look around at
myhelghbors and I love them for staying here: I love _.
t}Jat they live near where they work and that they,'
care a6out the envtronment and that they contrlliuie
io;fhe community.
, Whenever my ears ring or NWA reneges on anoth-
ec prom3se (that it won't tIy planes between 10 p.m.
and 6 a.m. or it wil! uy to huy quieter planes), and I
vow that we'll move, l look at my netghbors and theIr
well-kept lawns and houses and their polite chIldren
and their friendliness, and I can't see a reason Eor
moving out of here, fordestroy3ng this.
Although it looks as if it w311 be destroyed, Cor the
sake, we are told, of the economy. At least the
Immedlate economy.
. We, the people of south Mlnneapolis, have been
flgfiting the airpott and Northwest Airlines for so
long. We aze llke the Who people that Horton Fnds
tln,the speck of dust screaming. "We're here!"
•' But what votce do we have when the governor, the
MAC, the Met Council and all the declsionmakers '
6a've N4VA, wlth [ts money and its self-serving staUs- �
tics, wooing them In the other ear? Who but we t
o.urselves w3ll 6eHeve that we have a city, a civil3zs- ;
tio��, wonh presetving when the general thInking, �
fiteled in part by TV news, is that the entire clty !s
ci�ine-3nfested and not worth inhabiting anyway! !
' We're told that the decislon to build a new atrport !s (
•uot'a speclal•interest issue, that iPs not up to the gover- j
�
nor or the neighborhoods most
affected or Northwest Airlines,
but rather that the deciston
should be based on what's best for
the public good. Well, by whose
definitlon of the publlc good?
Ours is a vlbrant, desirable neighbor-
hood, as many in the fllght paths are. To
chase us out would b@ to ruin this city. I know
that people from the'suliurbs who come in and
use our parks and lakes and concerts (and then drive
oll and from their cocoons mal3gn us and pat them-
selves on the back for escaping us) might believe other-
wise. But one of the beauties of our state is that our
cltIes are so beautifuL
It costs more to bulld a new airport than to expand
the exist3ng one —$1.7 bllllon more, accordtng to a
Mazch 9 Staz Tdbune article. ThaPs about how much it
wiil cost to expand tnterstate Hwy. 35W for the subur-
baa commuters. But no one screams that that project
Is uneconomIcal.
We should be skepdcal of the reasons for not bulld-
Ing a new atrport. StaBst3a can support azryview. The
suburbanites want an easy drive to the aicport wtthout
tiving under Its Ilight paths. NWA wants no competltion
from other alrlInes, and it doesn't want to foot the bfll
for a new one. Downtown businesses want business
travetets ciose. All we want is to hear our children when
they talk to us, or the TV when we try to watch the
news. We want to enjoy the lakes and the parks
wlthout smelting Jet tuel.
But we're not hopeful. Spend a Sunday in our
nelghborhoods this spring. Wlth the sound tumed
of$ iPs a beaudFut place: The kids piay, people gaz-
den, we walk around the lakes. WIth the sound
tumed on, it fs a war zone.
It Justseems backwards, iltogical and shortsighted
to bulld an airport in the clty in a cramped space so
that the people who live here have to move out, far
from our jobs, Far from our recreational nctivities to
become homogeneoue subutbanites: isolated, potlut-
!ng the alr with gas fumes as we make our way on
ever-expanding highways wward the daily gdnd.
If thet heppens, and !t tooks as IE !t will, Minne-
apolis, w[th its pazks and lakes, wlll no tonger exist.
There wlll be noth[ng but skyscrapers, hlghways to
andjrom them, and alrport bu[fer zones. But, hey,
we wlll have saved $1.7 btWon.
r.:;
�
— Chrlattne Brunkhorat has lived in muth Minrte-
ppolt;for81 yeara. ,; ; , :: ,. .
sie�ireu,e asm
�
;"
t `''
�
_. /'�� � 1 tl DO'�
i
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
Generai Meetin4 .
ilAarch 26, 1996
7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m.
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
( t
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Cail to Order, Roil Cali
Approvai of Minutes of Meeting February 27, 1996
introduction of Invited Guests
Receipt of Communications
Technical Advisors Runway System Utilization Report and Complai� Summary
MASAC Address: John Himie, Chairmen, Pianning 8� Environme� Committee
Discussian: GPS Utilizafion for Noise Abatement Procedures
Report of the Executive Committee Meeting March 14, 1996
Report of the MAC March Commission Meeting
Persons Wishing to Address the Council
Other Items Not� on the Agenda
Adjoumment
Next Meeting:
_ April 23, 1996
:Nofe Only des�gnated MASAC ;;
tepresentatitres seafed �f the table will be .:'
:^ allowed ta vote : _ ' ::
�
�
�
�
t�
_
MINUTES
, METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
GENERAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 1996
7:30 p.m.
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
1. Call to Order Roll Call
The meeting was calied to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:30 p.m. and the secretary was
asked to call the roil. The foilowing members were in attendance:
Mark Salmen Northwest
Jennifer Sayre Northwest
Brian Bates Airbome
Phil Burke Mesaba
Mike Geyer � UPS
Bob Johnson MB�
(� � l Ron Johnson ALPA �
Dick Keinz MAC
Gordon Wagner Minneapolis
John Richter Minneapolis
Carol McGuire St. Paul
Tom Hueg St. Paul
Don Priebe Richfield
Jamie Verbrugge Richfield
John Nelson Bloomington
Ann �enczewski Bloomington
Mike Schlax Eagan
Jill Smith Mendota Heights
Ed Porter Bumsville
Dale Hammons Inver Grove Heights
Glenda Spiotta Associate Public Member Sunfish Lake
Advisors
Denis Comell FAA
Roy Fuhrmann Acting Technical Advisor
Guests
1
�
C�
C
�
�
2: A�proval of Minutes
The minutes of the :lanuary 23, 1996 meeting were approved as presented.
i
3. Introduction of invited Guests
Receipt of Communication
No invited guests.
No communications.
4. Technical Advisor's Runwav System Utilization Report and Complaint Summarv
The Technical Advisor's Report for the month of January 1996 was distributed and reviewed
by Roy Fuhrmann. Points of interest included:
* As requested at the last meeting, the Intemet address was added to the inside cover
of the Technical Advisor's Report.
* January noise complaints decreased to 415.
* Utilization of the Crosswind runway increased over last month.
* Nighttime jet car�ier operations increased on the Crosswind runway. RUS is at work!
* Along with the DC-9 hush program, Northwest will also be hush kitting twenty 727's.
', ) , . . -
* No�thwest winds caused heavy departures on 29's and likewise for arrivals on 11's over
Eagan. Historically, nighttime operations on the 29's have been lower than recent
months. The heavy usage during December was mostly due to runway closures for
snow removal which will be analyzed before a meeting is scheduled (requested by
John Richter) with Bruce Wagner, Jeff Hamiel and staff to discuss the increased
operations over Minneapolis.
5. Presentation� 1996 MAC Airside Construction Proiects
Gary Warren, Airpo�t Engineer, briefed MASAC on MAC 1996 ai�eld construction projects and
answered questions regarding planned reconstruction of the south parallel runway in 1997.
.____------�
MSP Pavement Statistics and Taday's Standard Ai�eld Pavement were reviewed and are '
attached to the minutes.
* $24M Airside construction projects for 1996. --
* The "Apron" construction will be all daytime construction and will impact the throat area
only. A key factor is that a pavement failure cannot be affflrded - MAC is trying to be
pro-active.
2
�
�
The Runway 4/22 extension (2750 ft.) project will begin Aprii 1 and compieted August
30 at a cost of $12.5M including engineering fees. The Runway 4/22 reconstruction '
project includes complete reconstruction of the intersection with the north parallel
runway. This intersection project wiil begin April 8, with construction occuring during
the nighttime hours until compietion. After the intersection reconstruction is complete, (
the southem portion of Runway 4/22 will be ciosed for 6-7 weeks, beginning May 28. `
Noise impact during construction wiil be minimal to none.
Upper and lower roadway construction in front of the airport will be completed by May
15, 1996.
FIS (Customs facility on the gold concourse) steel erection will begin within the next
2-3 weeks.
6. Report of the Februarv 16 1996 Operations Committee Meetinq
The minutes of the meeting were distributed to all members and reviewed by Operations
Committee Chairman, Mark Salmen. Please refer to the attached minutes.
Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, expressed concerns that Mendota Heights is adversely affected
in the DNL60. HNTB will be doing further analysis on this and will be reported at the March
Operations Committee meeting.
7. Report of the Februarv MAC Commission MeetinA
Chairman Johnson reported that phasing plans fo� developing at MSP through the year 2020
we�e discussed. Concept 6 and Concept 6A agree up to the year 2010 - additional information (
will be forwarded to the Commission and presented af the next meeting. `
The purpose of the Draft Report to the Legislature included a summary of work performed to
date regarding the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, to provide an official transmittal of the
recommendation of the two agencies (MAC and Metropolitan Council) to Legislature, and to
provide the basis for the recommendation. A meeting will be scheduled to allow for review of
the draft Findings and Conclusions.
The Commission will vote on the Dual Track process at the March meeting.
8. Persons Wishina to Address the Council
John Richter, Minneapolis, distributed an article from the WaII Street Joumal -"Real Estate"
dated February 2, 1996 (attached to the minutes). Mr. Richter conveyed that the City of
Minneapolis is being ruined because of MSP remaining at the present location.
�,
�
�
9. Other Items Not on the Aqenda
Cindy Greene, MSP FAA ATC, briefed members on the Precision Radar Monitor (PRM)
! system. The $6M PRM system is presently at MSP - the equipment will be commissioned in
October 1996.
The PRM is an electronic E-Scan Radar sending out electronic pulses which updates an
aircraft's position every 4.8 seconds on a controller's radar scope. This allows the parallel
runways, during conditions of Ifl�C weather, 40 operate in the same manner as they currently
operate during VMC weather. PRM does not affect ground movement - it decreases delay
time in the air. The benefit of PRM is the ability to display with greater .accuracy an arriving
aircraft's position. Currently, PRM is being analyzed in many different a�eas of operations and
procedures. •
Chairman Johnson announced that the MASAC Executive Committee will meet before the
March MASAC meeting.
Roy Fuhrmann communicated that John Foggia attended a GPS Conference in Phoenix to
discuss the integration of the Honeywell Differential GPS Ground Station with other airbome
equipment suppliers. MAC staff is cor�stantly analyzing ho�r new technology can be integrated
to solve the unique noise problems at MSP.
Roy Fuhrmann received a Star Tribune article dated 1-13-96 from Jim Serrin, entitled Noise
is a problem, But airport's an asset, written by J. Robert Stassen, MAC Deputy Executive
Director. A copy of the article is attached to the minutes for your review and will be discussed
at the March MASAC meeting.
� � 0. Adiournment
Chairman Johnson adjoumed the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Jean Deighton, Secretary
; !
�
�
C
C�
MINUTES
MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITfEE
� , February 16, 1996
`t )
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Office Lobby Conference
Room, and called to order at 9:35 a.m.
The foliowing memhers were in attendance:
Mark Salmen, NWA - Chairman
Bob Johnson - MBAA
Chuck Curry - ALPA
Dick Keinz - MAC
Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights
Jon Hohenstein - Eagan (Lorenzo Davis - Eagan)
A vi r :
John Foggia - Technical Advisor
Roy�Fuhrmann - MAC
Denis Cornell - FAA
. � •\
HNTB NADP Contours
Evan Futterman - HNTB
Kimberly Hughes - HNTB
The report package distributed at the meeting is an integral part of the meeting information and is
attached to the minutes.
NADP CONTOURS
Evan Futterman and Kimberly Hughes, HNTB, distributed and reviewed the preliminary NADP
contour population analysis comparing Close-in and Distant procedures, and DNL contour analysis
assessing the cumulative effects of the two profiles - distance versus altitude. Close-in procedure
points of interest are as follows:
• The population impact summary, indicates the Close-in procedure will be an ove�all benefit
to MSP. Based on the preliminary analysis, HNTB recommends utilizing the Close-in
procedure, assuming a full thrust [maximum performance] take-off.
• Utilizing the Close-in procedure, population reduction witliin the DNL65 Contour is as
follows:
1
�
COMMUNITY DNL 60 Population DNL 65 Population
Reduction Reduction
Minneapolis 5,820 1310
North Richfield 760 1570
South Richfield 365 660
inver Grove Heights 160 outside contour
Bioomington 0 . 540
Mendota Heights (380) 520
Eagan (40) 40
St. Paul 210 outside contour
The Close-in procedure utilizes a lesser thrust cut-back than the Distant procedure and
aircraft attain a higher altitude sooner, causing the DN� contour to end closer to the airport.
There is an overall improvement within all noise zones.
Charles Curry noted that, up to 800 feet AGL, both the Close-in and Distant procedures are
identical - same thrust for takeoff. All Close-in p�ocedures are flown at a full thrust setting
and all Distant procedures are assumed to be flown at reduced thrust.
A discussion session followed.
The committee agreed to pursue implementation of the: Close-in procedure and suggested the
following steps:
-� Northwest will validate their procedures and forward to HNTB who
will report back to the Operations Committee March 7 with a newly
generated contour, and distribute an updated report package.
� Final report is scheduled for presentation as follows: MASAC in
� April, forwarded to P&E and the Full Commission in May, with a
proposed implementation in June.
-� Depending on the final analysis, Northwest will need 30-days in
which to update the Jeppeson Manual and notify all pilots.
John Foggia relayed that approximately 6-months after the Close-in procedure is implemented, an
assessment would be conducted to quantify the difFerences between the current "Distant" procedure
and the potential change to a Close-in procedure. Current actual data on the Distant procedure
already exists. This would be compared to actual ANOMS data collected on a new Close-in
procedure, taking into consideration seasonal differences. The ANOMS data analyses would be
explicit enough to ascertain impact of the Close-in procedure.
�
�
Mark Salmen, Northwest, informed members that there are th�ee different levels of departure thrust
depending on aircraft type. He wiil validate each of the procedures by aircraft type and forward this
, information to HNTB who will generate a new cantour. An updated report package will be
� distributed at this time.
MASAC Goals and Objectives were deferred.
Jahn Foggia repo�ted that MAC Chairman Grieve requested a status report of the 1995 Objectives.
A memo outlining the Status of each element of the 1995 noise area objectives is attached.
The next Operations Committee meeting is scheduled MARCH 7, 1996. at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Jean Deighton
Committee Secretary
� j
r�
�.
�J
.. . 5' a � i '. ' . ", • �
� ' �
.
� . . .�.: . .�. ; ., _. _
..._ ..j.,;
. :.a. . .
���T �ese Da�a. , ,Silence Is Gold,en
.. . ✓
BY.EGttffiI HLU3�lStW.
�s, �it�.«.ar�w.�.s��w�,.x.�
�i T6e latest whlsper in the• huusing in-
*'dustry:.Sltener•.se!liiC'Say@cs�•Want their
:; home�tn��4F�lUBr(rom-the•everrising
L difl jt�a�.Sr121CsaittldtradCto iRodlm llfe.
. 'WM1r.,pqU;Oosne-home Gvm a hazd; •
�. atressf�il day at !he ofBce� You're just not
-< tea�y'faa. a' bt o! noise.:' sqya Mact Huss.
'• me�andlsL�g vla pcssident ta Mayc.ig
G1acp.'n 7enn•Alr/Mngic QKI �mIL "People
.. want t2reiex." ,
tt�reaten a buycr's fnvesUnent in a home
ottice. media room or twme theater.
"U you have SS0,000 to 5100.000 ot
equlpment, and yai arc watchtng movie-
theater�qualiry Q�qure and saund, you
¢ott t�'rant to heava C3t Ca ae��e
i[y b�3reaQ:' uys Chartes . r. an
'a�0�5�E"�a eneincer wtwse San tYancisco.
Qtm eharges up tn t155 an twur to diag•
nose and soive lame nolu problems.
Average hatkovnKrs wanl quitt loo.
Oa'ens Corning Fina�tas CbrP. faund a ma•
Jorily of consumers it
surveycd wiliing w pay
an exua i500 w add
soundprooting to their �
homes. "We're looking �
at the whole acoustica! '
mtrket as a gteat op�
{artunity for us." says
Jemes G. Schmied-
akamp, markeUng cam-
municauau manager.
At the National Asso-
claUon of Home Bullders
oonvention lasl week-
end, Owens Corning
rolled out QuietZone
acoustical batting. its
Orst insulaUon praduct
i
�, wr„ �,,,,�,,, marketed express y to
That's � hard W do in many exlstlng
homes. As outslde decibei leveLs etimb, the
walls of encan ve a•
ner. Homes and Wwn houses are ciuseered
together rtate densely thati in the past,
campoiurding the stre.n Uut malces people
tT�4VL�Qf na . . pn e
v ve en' expettatlons:
Rattles anci squeaks are otten assoGated
with staddy coasWctlon. whlle qulet "gives
the•peczeptlon o! more quallty:' says Philip
Hwe. a Newport Beach. CallL. archltect.
The resuit is a new quest tor quiet that
is changing home consuvcUon and design
and mutfling the whlning engines ot appii•
ances. Demand !s especialiy strong at the
high end ot the market, where noise can
d
c;
curb interior noise. The
company promoted the sound•stiQ(ng value
of its products in its (Icsttver Super Bowl
commerctai last Sunday.
Sane builders arc suiving to make even
lawer�priced honses quieter. Waterlord
Homes ot Batavia. N.. rccently used rnn-
aete biocks In the we1Ls dividing 5150.000�
and�under wwn•tause units. tt uses Uie
same technique. which costs an exua 5�.000
per uni4 in town tames costing nearly twice
as much. "We were concerned about our
image." says EtobeKNeison. president.
Stilt, therc are limia to home noise
abatemem. Easyto-mstali gypsum board
is here to stay, even though it absorbs less
sound lhan the inch•thick piaster walls
P[ease i'arn W Papt 88. Cotumrt i
P'RIDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 BS
Sports: A trainer mho gets advice ..
straight from the horse's inouth Pacge 86.
The Home �ron� You needn't be a
rich person to own a house like one Page B8.
r--�,����
In Homes, Silence Is Golden
(bnlimx�i �5n+n A�r,ryr BI -' noise-�eduction technology, which it says
typipi o( homes 6uilt befare WoHd War tt. can acw�ily push saund away rather than
Olddashioned casl•fron plambing pipes pnssively absorb it, as insulation does. So
werc denser—and thus quietec-than the far, its sole rnnsumer product is a S99
plasUc pipes used today. Some builders headsetthalreduces backgraund noise.
sllii put In cast•iron pipe for certain uses. Appliances are chief contributors to the
while mnny others, Ilke PTL Custom din. 4Vhen the dishwasher is turned on, •'peo-
Homes fnc. in L.umbertvlle. Mich., heav • ple Itee; the kids can't do their homevrork:'
iiy Insulate plasUc pipex to make gurgiing says Caivlyn Venveyst. Whihpool Corp.'s
and sloshing las audi6le. marketing mmmunications manager.
Nor arc buyers likely to forgo today's UnUi recently, about the oniy solution
popular open'Qoor plans, whlch add cnm was to buy a European dishwasher rnsting
sWerebiy lo the claUea Kltchens that open t800 and up. But in the past year. most
onto dintng nreas and tamily rooms create U.S. manulacturers have introduced new.
a hubbub ot appliances.• televisions and quieter models. Jenn•Atr has•been selling
sterco systems. So, to,keep sound from its UlUmate Quiet brand since Auguse:
boundng eround so 6eely. CAscan David• though it costs i50 more than othe� mod-
son Homes in De! Mar. CaUf.. tties to vary els. it's already the company's top setier.
ceiNng heighis and nngle the walls In open �"For many years, the focus has been on
areus; says Willlam B. Proben, vice presi• mxki�g dlshwashers that ciea� better,"
dent of sales and rtw�fceting. says Jenn•Air's Mr. Buss. Now, consumers
Lke many buiidets. Casran aLso Is modi• assume they a0 clean reasona6ly weil, he
(ying upstalrs (boring ro ari � on says, and "what has become a very impor
squeaks. F`a lbor, joists, !t uses pressed taat (actor to the high end ts quiet."
wood—a unifam tnateclai that doesn't 4Vhirfpooi inuoduced its Quiet Parmer
shrink oc twist ilke trndldana! cut lumber. dishwasher last year. Four months ago it
ltaugh pressed waod Joists cost abart brvught out a quleter wastiing machine, with
30�k more than lumber, they are now �aed In padding inside the tub, more insulation in
abart 20�•F of new (loors: Trvs Jolst MecMIF 1he cabinet walls, and a.quieter drai� hose.
Wn, a Bolse !lmited partnership ttwt mano- Wry�rlppp�'s research shows lhat homemak-
factures the Jolsts, says they save on labor ers vrant laundry equlpment near the
bsts and redua homeowne� mmpiaints. kitchen, rather than in the basement. "They
Reducing Intetior nolse Is a snap com• don't want to he�r a 6unch of clatter: ':Ks.
�ared with blocicing out the sounds ohafr• ., Verweystsays. .'.. -.=,�+.:,. .:• �
iirne and auto trat0c, arnusUa experts ' Consumers do stlii demand a reassuring�
:ay. Doubtrpaned windows, tront porches rumbie frum some appitances, to pmve
md insulution don'I (utly do the t�ick. they're doing the jo6. ��ThaCs why v;�cuum
Noise G►nceiiaUon Technologies [nc: in ci�aners wiil probabry continue m remuin
dnthicum. Md.. Is worfcing on "active" noisy," s:�ys M�. S:ilter, the en�ineer.
�.
Ai
�;
i
_.l. . _. .
......,..�... .
�"'�„'.+•`+ms�A��!! hhti; ,a ��,. . . : ......
� . t � �.11U7+ /, .
r �1
� t • �
�'
,� � � � r � c � � � ✓, •..
�� • 'i � .� ' �� •; • � . • � •:� ' � , � ,.
• • . � � •; • 1 1' ' ' • • : '
• . L • � � . . . . -
• •
• � , � �
' . . . . ' ' � � -
. , . �
. ' .
• � " c � � � . . �
� �l.O MV�6�
� �70 I�VR�a7
550 ACRES
• � • , . , � .,
• . . .
. • -
m
1i 1
�
• 'P � ► � i '• � � " � ■' � _
o�eee��omaamaaeea��o��ooaasoaemo���mo�oa�ae��o�v�e���������omomo��ama�ai���s�eoasoavomm
� � '
e��v��ova��s�omm�amaa��s�o���o�m�a�v���m�oas��a�������000��ee��■r���mana�oeo�o�e���e
; �' � � � � �
; � ' � ; :
' .
� �
e ' ' ' � '� �
� • ` .
�' � i � •' � `' '•
- '. ' • �; '� � • �� • � •
• +
t
�
r, _.-�--
�:"�`("� �L � �. l R•,
�.. LJ,-`�1�
� • ■ , ' � ,
` •-_:; c
! . .��:.r
but airpor�s a� �� � ��;��� �
��� T^ �',
noise abatement programs� de�-
veloped with the help of nois� "�
affected residents. AithougH•nt,.
solving the problem, these �ef-
forts have reduced average.tta�=
ly noise by 25 percent. -. �; -;
For six years the Metrop�oii-
tan Airports Commiscsion
(MAC) has followed the Legi�Ia�-
ture's mandate to explore �vhat
capacities and facilitiesi,,ar�
needed to meet the communi-
ty's air service demands. '
The Legislature has rese�.=vec1
the right to choose where thcise
capacities and facilities shot��d
be located. The governor" �ias
asked that the Legislature move
up the decision date. MAC can
have all essential information
available to assist the Legisla-
ture in making an earlier deci-
sion.
There are at l�ast three rays
of hope for the short term:
D► Airlines are required by
federal law to have a stage 3
tquieter) fleet by the end o� tt��
decade.
> MAC and Honeywell'a'r�e
installing a Glob'al PositioFrin�
System (GPS�, a navigati'vrial
aid that will enable aircra'ft 'Co
land using many differenr ap-
proaches, eliminating the r��et�
to follow a long straigl��,in
landing approach. This wil}dif-
fuse the noise of landing����-
�craft.
> MAC will continue�: its
home acquisition and t�,tne
and school insulation pio-
grams, which have been'�nrell
received by those who have-�tak-
en advantage of them. � •-
If the decision is made nait�'to
build a new airport, MAC'-wil1
indeed be ver� serious atioiit
helping preserve all the beauti-
ful areas in the southern part:of
the Twin Cities metropolitan
area. MAC looks forward..to
working with O'Hara and ather
concerned residents to accom�
plish that end. ..
Megan O'Hara's piece on
your Commentary Page about
aircraft noise deals with a seri-
ous and troublesome problem,
but it is inaccurate and does
not look at the entire picture.
She probably had no control
over the headline, which com-
pazed jet noise to milfoil. It
should be pointed out, howev-
er, that whereas milfoil has little
or no redeeming value, jet noise
is an unfortunate byproduct of
airport activities which result in
the creation of 113,000 jobs,
more than $5.5 billion annually
injected into the locaI commu-
nity, much of it as wages, and
more than $350 million in taxes
for local and state coffers. Stop-
ping the flights means cutting
off the economic bene�ts and
job creation.
It is not true that the "resi-
dents of Minneapolis get more
than 90 percent of the airport's
flights" over their homes. Nor is
it true that the percentage has
increased in recent yeazs.
October 1995 total move-
ments over south Minneapolis
were 47.7 percent of the total.
1995 totals through November
were 46.1 percent. 1989 move-
ments were at 48.6 percent.
Movements over Mendota
Heights and Eagan average
about 55 percent.
What O'Hara has apparently
done is add the percentages of
landings and takeoffs together
to arrive at 90 percent. Using
that logic, any city that had 100
percent of the landings and 100
percent of the takeoffs would
be subject to "200 percent" of
total movernents.
Nevertheless, the noise
problem is a real and serious
problem. It is not easily solved.
As for her statement about
the governor (and MAC) not
"giving a passing nod . . . (to)
seeking solutions for the 20,000
to 30,000 Minnesotans ham-
mered by jet noise," she has
totally ignored the millions of — j. Robp�t Stassen. Deputy
do(lars spent over the years to executive �director, Metropoli-
�r�itigate noise through many tanAirportsCommissinn_
�
m asac/ops/baseln95.wk4
�' .;i �''tl' i ' 1 i1/ 1•
' ' 1' 1'1'':
zarouss
C
�
:' 'i//i1:'.
!�
�r�� _ li�linneapolis / St. Paul Intemational Airpori ��
-�� .._..., ....�............
�� MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council
c�w;�n•
Robert P. Johneon
Vice CJaimfan:
s�u s�,un
Technical Adviror.
Jo6n Fo�ie
Secretary:
Jeau Deighloa
Airborne Exprnsr.
Hdaa Bates
AirTinmport yaceiation:
Peul McGraw
ALPA:
Cherlcs W. Corry )r.
City afBloominglon:
Petraao Lee
Vem Wilcox
c�ry �a�v;ne:
1� x;v�.
cry �f�s�:
Tam E�m
City cflm�er Crrove Heighta:
nule smnmon.
City ofMendotaHeightr:
Ji118mith
City y%Minneapol'u:
Jmmes B. Berrto
IoLn Richter
Joe I.ee
��a;m aoa�
City c�fRictsi3efd:
George xamn.
n� r��r,e
Ciy cf'St. Louis Park:
� nam..
c;r� �sr. pd,t:
s�n a�
c� c. w�„a�
Caeot Am McGuiro
De!!a AirLinerlrtc.:
Rich ECdwdl
Fedem! Erprraa:
Tom Rde9naic
Fedeml Aviation Adminiahnrion:
Beuco Wagoocr
Rondd Glaub
MACStq�:�
D1ek Adus
MBM:
Rotkai P. Jo6nem
Metatn Nortl�wut AirlirsF:
Lac►rmm MeCabe
Mehopo(itars Airport� Cammis,riorc
Commlaiona' Alioo Gaeper
MNAIrNalional Gumd:
Mqjor Mark R Nm
Nor1/avulAir/ine,r:
�� ��
r�;ra soyro
sr. Pa„r cn�. �c�,�:
Jack Barkiry
Sun Country Airfine.r:
Luke A. t',oma
Utited Airline.� /ne,;
Ailan Tomlmaon
Unifed Parce(Service:
aleve walker- r.� eil►m�
US. Air Fom Ruerve:
ceP� at�m cn�a
US. Supplementa( Caniero:
x�e a �
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� Declaration of Purposes
1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience,
and necessily; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state,
and local, in and thra�gh this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical
handling of au' commerce; assvre the inclusion of this state in national and intemational
Programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the
metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all
aviatio�n facilities in the entire state so as to proyide for the most economical and
effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area;
2.) Assure the residents of the metrc�politan area of the minimum environmental impact
from air navigaaon and �ransportaao�, and to that end provide for noise abatement,
control of airport ana land use. and other protecdive measures; and
3.) Promote the averall goals of the state's environmental policies and m,nim;�p �
publids exposure to noise and safery hazards around airports,
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Statement of Purpose
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities
�Jo�tB M��apolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a
public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minaesota, through the alleviadon of
the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and
evaluation on a continuing basis of tl�e problem and of suggestio�n for the alleviatian of
tl�e same; through initiation, coardinadon and promotion of reasonable and effective
Procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and
of ainxaft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected
cvmmunities, ttteir affected resic�nts, and the users of the airport respectizng the
problem of a.incraft noise m►isan�ce and in respect to suggestions made and actions
initiated and ta�en to alleviate the problem.
Metropolitan Airca�aft Sound Abatement Council
Repmsentation
The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and governmenta.i bodies which by reason of tlteir statutory authoriry. and
respansibility or cantrol wer the airport, or by reasoan of their status as airport users.
have a direct interest in tlie c�eration af the airport. Such members will be called User
Bepresentatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and
Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number.
The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411.
Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes
in Airpon activiry, but pravides a public sounding
board and airport information outlet The hotline
is stafFed 24-hours Monduy - Friday
Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Prvgrams
This repat is prepared and printed in house by ,
Traci Erickson, ANOMS Sgecialist
Quesfions or comments may be directed ta
MAC - Aviation Noise & Satellite Progam
Minneapolis / St Paul Intemational Airport '
G040 28ttt Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Tel: (612) 725-6331. Fax: (612) 725-6310
ANSP Home Page: http://www.macavsat.ora �
1 /
/,. , , , , , , i � `
Operations Summary - All Aircraft, ....................................................................................1
MSP January Fleet Mix Percenta.ge .............................................:....................................... l
Airport January Compla.int Summary ..................................................................................1
January CJperations Summary - Airport Directors Office .....................:..............................1
Minneapolis - St. Pacullnternatzoa�al A.arport C�mplaint 5umma�°y 2
Compla.int Summary by City ...................................:...........................................................2
' / , ., /' � � ' / / '
AllHours ..............................................................................................................................3
NighttimeHours ..........................:..........................:...............................................:............3
. ` � �. � � .
Runway Use Report January 1996 : ..................................................:.........:........................4
� , , � � . � �
Runway Use Report January 1996 ................
, . . / �' �, / r
........................................:......................5
Runway Use Report January 1996 ................................................:...............:......................6
� � i � � ./ �'' i l
Runway Use Report January 1996 ............................................................:..........................7
� � � /�� � � i r� ;.
Aircraft Iden%fier arnd DescriptionTable 9
IZunway Use - Day/Night� Periods - All 4perat�ons 10
DaytimeHours ...............................................................................,...................................10
Community Overfl'ight Analysas 11
�
� Casrier 7et Operations - All Hours .....................................................................................11
___ , Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (l lpm 6 am) .....:.......................................................11
• �: r ��;` � '
. i�
, : : a, : � „ , . ,,,�Aviatio�n Noise & Sabellite Programs
`
Remote Monitoring Site Locataons 12
� , , • � � ,, � ,;< / . ,
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ............................................
� , , , ,�� , I ,'� ,�, � , , , ,_
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................................................14
' � �, , � � , , �, .�
' l �, . � � , , �, ,�
• � �, . � � , , �, ,�
' � i ;, • ,� � � � i � � �'
, � �, . � � , , �, ,�
' � i� � � � � , �, ,�
�'light a'rack Base 11�ap 2I
(,
t�ir�ortNoise aaaul Opera�ions 1Vion�toring 5ystems �light Tracks 22
Carrier 7et Uperations - January 1996 ...............................................................................22
Airport Noise and Operations 1�Ionatorin,g System Flight Tracks � 23
Carrier Jet Operations - January 1996 ...............................................................................23
Azrport No�se a�d Operat�o�ts Monitoring �System Flight Tracks 24
Carrier Jet Operati.ons - 7anuary 1996 .........................................................................:.... 24
A.irport No�se and Ope�°cxt�ons Mon�toring System Flaghi Tracks 25
Carrier Jet Operations - January 1996 ...........................:.......................................:.......... 25
Airport Nozse and Operat�ons Monitoring System Flight �'racks 26
Carrier Jet Operations - January 1996 .............................................................................. 26
Analysis of Ai�c�aft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) 2i ��
Analy,sis o,�'Airc�aft Naise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) 28
� ��
Aviatiaan Noise & Satellite Programs
v
�
Metropolitan Airports Commissian
�perataons ancl Corr�plaan� 5uanmary
• Janua.r°y 1996
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
0
MSP January Fleet Mix Percentage
Airport January Complaint-Summary
January Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office
Aviaricxi Noise & Satellite Programs
m
Page 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
,...
Minneapolis - St. l'aul Internationai Airport Compiaint Suanrnary
January 1996
Complaint Summary by City
:..:;...::>:;::<,:<;:::::::::>�>:::::::::::�::;::::::>:;:::>�::::::::;:: :>:::>:::::�;:::::>:�::>:<:::::::::>:::»:»::>::>:::: ::::::::���:>:::>:::::::> :::::::::::::::>::::>::>:::<:::: �::;::::>::::»:::::::::::::�:>::>:::>:::>:::�::::::::::: >::>::::::::::::::::::::::::::>:::::::>:::>:::::;:>::>
: .;::: :>::»>::»»;. ::: ::>:::::
::: ::::: ::::»::>::>::>::;::: ::>::>::::
>:.>:;::.::.:::.::.;>;:.>: ::.::.::::.: .:. . : ::<.�:::::::::::::::::::::::::: .::::::.;::. .: :.:.,� :..:.. :::::::: :.::: . :..::.:: :.:..:::..� .: :.:::. :.::.;:.;:.:::;.. .::: :::. ..�:: :..�::. :::. .:::::.�:::::;::..;::.:;�:::::
::> :::::::::::::::::>>::>::::>:::::::�::::::>:::::::���: :::»:::>:::<:>�::>::::;::::»:<::::::::>::::>: :;;::�>::>�. �:: ; .. . . :::>:::<:>::: >::::: : :. . , ::::<: ::>:::>:::::.:::.: � � : : :<:>:::>::::>::> :>:::: ... . . . . . . . . .....,;.,
:::.�:.�::::::::::;::::.::.�:.:�.�:::.:�':':.:;>::.::.;;::.;:.::.::.;;::.;:;::::::.:::::::::�.�`��€;�.�:;.:�:.:.;..;:.:�. �,t'��`�::::.::.::.;:»::.;��►�.::.>:.;;::.;�:.:.� .. ... ;:::
.........!� :::::::::::::::::.�::.::::::::::::::::::.�:.::.........:..:::���:� ..:::
.:;;;:.;::;<:.;:.;:.;;;:�:.>:<.»:.>:.::<:;<.::.:>::::::.:::;;;::::::::::.�::>:::::;; .:::.>:.:;:>::.»;:;:;;:.:;:;<.:::;: .:.:::: .................................... ...................... ............ ...........................�
Apple Valley 1 9 10 2.5%
Bloomington 0 12 12 2.9%
Burnsville 0 14 14 3.5%
Golden Valley 0 1 1. � 0.3%
Eagan . 34 60 94 23.3%
Edina 0 1 1 0.3%
Inver Grove Heights 1 23 24 5.8%
Maplewood. 0 1 1 0.3%
Mendota Heights 8 12 20 5.0%
Minneapolis 31 156 18'7 46.3%
Richfield 0. 23 23 5.6%
S. St. Paul 0 3 3 0.7%
St. Louis Park 0 1 1 0.3%
St. Paul 8 3 11 2.6%
W. St. Paul 1 0 1 0.3%
Zimmerman 0 1 1 0.3%
::::>::::: <:::;::>::::::: � : :
:�>:�:::::>:>''���:�:���:::�::<:::::;<::::::::��::<::::::::>';:'::: ::.::::+;';:::::.:.;.:;::;;::,;:.,:::�:::<::::::'::::>::' ::::::»::>�:>�:;:::::,`:.:::<.;::::::>�>:;�::>::>:::: :>::>;':>'::::::::::����"�`���'«:::::;`::::>:<:::> :::>��::::::;��::;:.:;;�.::.:<...: :.::.:..:::::<`::::::�::
:::::::::»;::::>:::;::< :::::.............. .::::::::::.�:::. ...................:.. ..... ...::::: �:�.............. .�.�:::.�:::..�"�.�.::::::::::::: .:.:�::: :.:::.. . .. :.:.:;::::.�::: .::::::..... . .: ..::::::..
. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : : : :.: : ::. � : .. � : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ::: : : . : � :.:.:.:;.::.;>: :.: :.>:.: <.:.:.: <.:;.:.::' �.�:.:.: :.>: � :::::: : :: :>::>::: ::: : <:: �:�._�...�....�'.......::»::>: : ;:::
Time of Day Nature of Complaint
�
�d
Page 2 Aviatioan Noise & Satellite Programs
M,etropolitan Airports Commission
Available Time for Runway �Jse `
Tower Log Reports - January 1996
All Hours
��:<<:;(�:�a�:=�
:::I�>.
' '�::�:�: �
;�:�:��:�C;��`a::>:.;>:;,
va
mm u
Nighttime Hours
'<::;:;Q:�i::::;
:;::;:'�:;�;�:'>::<;;>:
e?>�.
: s:::.i~t��:;:;;
0
04 �`���::�::��:����� �
-:.:: :::::::::::::�::�:::�
:�,. :�:::���:�::.
2;'�:;N?3i;:;i:�i;i%�' . .. .r... ._.: �:,sn�ta'.�,'ri.-: . .
� , �...Y�t�! p � .. � . .
i:'+'}• � � �. � ..� ,.
, �
'��_� �:... � '�: "iYf.=Y.��....n�..._"�!'.�hil'+:.eil;.......��.'��.. . �
ii
. Aviada� Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 3
Metropo�itan Airports Commission
;� _�`� .
.. �:._.�:�:�:,. .._ .
Runvvay Use Report January 996
<::::>:�>:'�:'0:�:°�a
Ee
Page 4 Aviatio� Noise & Satellite Programs
�
�
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�
Caa-rier Jet Operations
Runway Use IZeport January 996
:::::;:.:::::o�o:�Q
<<
Aviatiaa� Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 5
I�Tetropnlitaa Airports Commission
�
litighttime - A.11 t)perations
lZunway Use Report January 996 �
::>::>��:z��; (.
1d
Page 6 Aviatio�n Noise & Satellite Programs
<
�
Melropolitan Airports Commission
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations
Runway �.1�e I2eport January 996
:<:;::>;'�*:�:`�'�`
r�
Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 7
Metrop�litan Airports.Commission
. . , � . � � � ,
. y
:.:i:i?:�;��,�i...'..�'.�t:,;;.;y::i;:i:?S:'.:.�i;'2?i;%`:.�::::..,�:.;:::;';�:::::..:?:iii::�::::5 i::�`•��•:.`o".:`.``'.r""``"."�::'''`•.'•�:'i;ii
....,::.;:�:��:�`�:.;:.; .;:.;;:::»:..�li��.;::.;:..;;; :::>:��.�E`:.C!�€i..:,.: !�:::::
.:: �::::.:
B7U7 0 0.0%
B727H 246 1.0%
B733/4/5 863 3.6%
B747 208 0.9% - . ._.
B74F 11 0.1%
B757 2148 9.0%
B767 0 0.0%
BA46 116 0.5%
CL65 303 1.3%
DA10 4 0.0%
DC10 898 3.8%
DC87 125 0.5%
DC9H. 2293 9.6%
EA31 30 0.1%
EA32 2Q 18 8.5%
FK10 1062 4.4%
L1011 129 0.5%
MD 11 6 0.0%
1VID80 1192 5.0%.
BA10 5 0.0%
BAll 3 0.0%
B"12'7 3332 14.0% .
B737 1294 5.4%
DCS - 126 0.5%
DC9 7457 31.3%
FK28 0 0.0%
`:>::::::<;; �:':'::..�#?::::;:�_::::: �:><:�>� � >� ��::: �'<>;:;::;..:.:::.;��":'',,:::� ::::::::::::::: '�'�>��::>::::>:: ` ��:::::'.}::::�.`j`}�.:':;:::;�:;>:'�:>?
::::: :>:: ��#i�:.::::>:;:.: :>::>: r:.r;�:V [!�::9!GF..:x.r:::: r
, . . , � - //
. . . •
51.2% Stage II
11
Page 8 Aviatio�n Noise 8c Satellite Programs
C
C
�
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� .; 1i' ' . 1 �' 1' i '. 1.
:::::>;>:::::::':w;;';<:>::>,:;:>::::::>:'s �::»;;:?;:::::::::`:: `::::�:>:::::>:::::::'::::>'::>:::::::::>'::::>::»':'.<::':':::>::>':<�>��><: `:::>::
:::;:.;:;::.::>:;;;>:>;:.�;::>:<.::.:.;:.:: >:.;:.:.::.;;:;:;;:<.;>::,:.;>:::;�<.;::.>:.;;;:::.:;.::;:,»;>:.::.:;;�.::.:::<:«.>;;;:;:.;>::.>:.>;;;:.>:.;:::.;:
<>::»:::;:: �:::::>:::<:::::,,:.:><::::>::>::;>: ::s»::>::>:>:>::s:::::<:::::<::: <:>:::::<:>:::::::<:>::>::>::::::::>:;::;:;>::>::>;>:;:>::::»>:>:::r:>:<:::::<>::::;>::.:.::�:.:;;... . . . ......... . ....... ..
R . . i::.:i niiiii:yiii:.i::L .::::: :.:::::.�.�:::::.�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::. :
• :. : :.�i#4�:::::ss::<:::'<:>>.::::<::::�z�::::::::::>::::::>::::::::>:::�:<:::::;::.':<:::.<:�»��::>::>;:><::�:
' �::���
::r::>::: r . �
: : : : .��`��.
.:::.;:. .t��','R���`.::�:;::> ::::>z:»�:::::::::::>::<>:::>:::>::::>:::>::::::<.::::::::>::»>:>::s::>::::>::s; :::::::::::::>::s:.�►1X.'. .. . . ........ ..........::.... ........................................:.:...
..:.: � .................:..:: :.:.: :.::... :...:..::..::.::....:::::::: :•::::.�:::.::�::: :.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:..:.. .:.:........:........:.......::......:.:.............:::::::::::::::::::::::::
....: �::::::::.�.�:::::::::.� ::::.::::::..:.�:::.�::::::..........................
B707 BOEING 707
B727 BOEING 727
B727H BOEING 727 - FiUSH KTT
B733/4/5 BOEINC"s 737-3�i4�/50�
B737 BOEING 7371�l2� SII2IES
B747 BOIING 747
B74F BOEIlVG 747 FREIGHTER -
B757 BOEIl�tG 75'7
B767 BOEING 767
BA10 BRITISH AIItOSPACE 125
BAll BRTTiSH AIItOSPACE 111
BA46 BRITISH AEROSPACE 146
CL65 CANADAIIt 650
DA10 — FALCON 10
DC10 MGDONNEGL DOUGLAS DC10
DC8 MC�ONNELL DOUGLAS DC8
DC87 MGDOrfNELL DOUGLAS DC8 '70-SII21ES RE
DC9 MC�ONNEI�. DOUGLAS DC9
DC9H MC�ONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 HUSHI�ITTID
EA31 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A310
EA32 AIRBUS INDUSZ1tIE,S A320
FK10 FOKI�E2100
FK27 FOIff�ER F27 (PROP)
FK28 , FOHI�t F28
L1011 LOCI�ID TRISTAR L1011
1VIDll MC,DONNELL DOUGLAS DCll
1VID80 MCDONNF�:L DOUGLAS DC9 80.5IItIES
SW3 SWF.ARINGEN METROLINER 3
SW4 SVV�ARINGEN METROLIlVIIt 4
SF34 SAAB 340
I[�
Aviatia�n Noise 8c Satellite Programs
Page 9
�
Me�ropol.itan Airports Commission
� � . � r, � � , � � ,
� `' . ,, �
' , 1 1 �' . ' , i . ', • �, �, ,, , -1- t �
Daytime Hours
Nighttime I�iours
Fi
Page 10 Aviatio� Noise & Satellite Programs
��
C
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�
Comt�un�ty Overflight Analysis
1Vlinneapolis - St. P'aul Internationai Airport January 1996
Carrier Jet Operations - Atl Hours
Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (11pm - 6 am)
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 11
Metropotitan Airports Commission
.Remote IVlonitorang Site Locations
Airport Noise and Opera�ions Monitoring �ystern
(d
Page 12 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�
�
Melropolitan Airports C:ommission
� • � � , � � ' .. • �' � , . .
�, � 1' 1 �.
Couni of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT
{� �� �'�] Q::>:: :�>:`;<]���i�ts::::>�:
>��: :;:<`:��ei� ``">:... . . .
+ �:: €::::::;>:;: �..: . . . . . .
::<; ::<:>::I��
:<::::::::::::»>::;::>::;>::;::>::>: :: :>:::>:::>;::>:::::;:::»>::>::>::<:>::>::::::::>::>::»::>:::::»:::: :>::>:::>::>::»::»»::>::»::;>::::::::::::::«:::::::>:>::::::::::>::>:<:<:>::::::>;>::»::>::»>::>::>::>::»>::>::: :»;:«::<:::::::;::::>::;;;;;»>
:>:::< :::y.. :�.:...: .....:::>:<::::::«:>::>:::::»>::»:::<:::»::;:::::>:<:>:<::::>::»::<>::»::»::::::>::::::::::>:::::>::<:::>::>::>::>::>:<:»>::»::>::»::>::»::::::>:::>::»::>:::�:»::>::::>::::>:::;>:::::;::>::>::>::>::>::: :....::.:�:::::.�:
>:>::::>> :. .:> ;::>:::�::>::»>:::::<:::>:;::::;::><::>:::>:::>::::::::»::>:::>::::::::>::;::::>:::<:>:::::::>::<:>:::::::::>:::<:>::>:::::�:::;>::;::<:<::>::::>;�::::::::>:::::::::;::::>::>:::«:>::>::::>;>���:::::>:<>:::;:::>::�:::::�w�ri::(::;:::
....... . . ....... .................... >. ..�::::::.............. ...... .................i......... ..v. . . ......: .. ..: .:: ..: .... . . . ..... ..................!:V:.... .............xf`.�.�....L:..: .::::::::::::.�:::��4 ::::. .::::.�:::::::.�::::.�.�:::
�::.:�ii��y::::. �.�:::::::::.� :::::: :. . ::::::::::::::::::: .�:::: : • �{
> n ��}::i ::::::::::::::i:<:::'}.$iir.yi::.��':::i::;::::ij::::::i::•::::•i::;:::i::i::::.:y:::: :i':::.::::iii:eyi}.'•i?ii:;.�,.y. ..Y,.,,,,,�..,ii:j�C>^:C.<•i>:«}....
:'.�:�x�::�a�.
<::<:>::><:<:<:;;::::<>:>:::>::::::> ::::>:<::::<::::>::::>::>::>:: >:: :. .:;:::::::::><::»:<:>::>::: :»::;; . :. .:. . �� ��..��.. ..
:.:::.�::. . .:.�:.� :::::::::::.::..........��� ..:.::::::::::::::::..::::�: : .�t;u�..............:..:.:::::.�:::.:..::.::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::. ... : : : ::::: .:::: ... . . ::::.:.:.::... :.::::::::. .:: :::.
:::::::.�. . .. .:.� :::::: .:::: :.:.�:.�::::::::::::::.�'`:............:.......::.::::: ��.::::::::::.�.�:::::::::.:............::.:..:..............::.:::::::::: :::::. .. . . .:::: .::::.. .:::. ..::... . ..... ..:: . : . . . .::.
.:.:�..:..�����.::.
.:::: .::::����..... ... .
::::::.�:: .. ::.�:::.�::::::::.::;::::::<.: .:.:::.::.::.:<.::;:.;:;.>:.>:.::.:>:.::.:::...:::..�::::::::::::.::::::::::::.;:.;:.;:.;:.:�>:.>:.::.;;;:::;:.»:.>::.>:::<.::.::.>:.;:.:::.:::::::::.�:.� .. ::::: .:::: .�d�........... .
.......:. . . :::::::.�: ::.::::.....:....:................................ .................::::::::::::.:.............................................................��:�.::.� .::::�...:..:............ .....................................................
::::.�::..�� .......... ...............................................:..: :::.:::::::::::............................................................::::: :.::::..::.�::::::::............... ........................... ................................::.:.: :.::.::::::::: :.:
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Sfreet 2077 77 0 0
� 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1648 188 2 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood St�et & Belmont Avenue 2100 --� 1033 48 0
4 Minneapolis . Oakland Avenue & 49th Stre�t 1942 553 3 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 2167 1557� 414 2
6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 1799 1284 199 1
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Street 3 1 0 0
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 19 2 0 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga Street 8r. Hartford Avenue 52 11 0 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Howdoin Street 76 44 8 0
11 S�. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 12 3 0 0
�:::;::::::>:::��:>�'::�:;:::::::>:: ::::;:>;;;::>;:':::::�:::::::�:`:::<�:`':>::::
;`;':::::<:;:`.:�>:���`�:�`3kr:`;:;::;;� ::: :.::::::::::::::::::::`:::::::.'r,.::::i.`fi:;.::.fi'tt::::£ :i::::�::r::i::' ::::::::::':i:� �s: ``�;s::::r::;:::::::;::;:::::::::.::::2:;;t.'•;;i:::::� �:::::::::;:::%::::;'•i;::::�:::::;:::::::::::::::::':t:::::::: ::::::`:�:;;;::'S:: ���'::i:::::::::::::::: :::;:::::::`:::'i`�::;:::?:�::::::>`:::;::: ::::::;
:.::.>:. i:<.i:?�:.r..::.::.::.:::. .::.t::.::.;;;:.:?�:.::.s;:.>:.::.r: .::.>:.::::::::.. � : ::... . . . . .. . ............ . . . . .... .... ..
� •4�::�ti�'t�:::> ::::::::::::::<:�::::•:::::::::::::.�: •:::::::::::•.�.�::::::::.� .:::::::::::::.�.�::::.�:::...:�::::::::::::::•.�::.�::.
<.:::s>::::� � : .: <e:::>::::>: :;.;::::.::.::.::.:<.::. ..: .: •::>:::»:::»<::::::::::::>::::>:::;�4�+p@GX::i�.�1.�..�.�;s�G:��
...........��� ........... ................ ��«.�.�....... .. ...... :. .. ................................................................................. ........................... ........................... ..................... ::..... .:::::::::::::::::::. �:. �::.
13 Mendota Heights Southeast eud of Mo�ican Caurt 35 1 0 0
14 Eagan First Strcet & McKee Street 5616 138. 0 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street 8i Lexingt� Avenue 144 13 1 0
16 Eagan. Aval� Avenue & V'�las Lane 4751 2525 56 0
17 Bloomington 84th Street 8c 4th Avenue 55 16 0 0�
. 18 Richfield 75th Street 8c 17th Avenue 51 11 0 0
19 Bloomington 16th Avenue 8c 84th Street 16 0 0 0
20 Richfield 75th Strcet & 3rd Avenue 10 0 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street l� 2 0 0
22 Inver Grrne Heights Anne Marie Trail 1981 21 0 0
23 Mendota FIeights End of Kendon Avenue 1202 44 1 0
24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 4376 114 14 0
* Site 12 is experiencing equipment problems.
r
Aviatia�n Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 13
Metc�politan Airports Commission
�
Carr�er Jet l)eparture Related No�se Events
Janu�ry 1996
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT �
::>``;;:.1Ti;�'.`:�`•.:;'::;:::::::;:?; :::: �:�:::;::::i'::::::'i::;:::?i:::::::�:�:::5::: �::::::i':�����::::::::::;:::::? i':�:::::::::::t:`:: �>::':::::�:;:t':::�::r�::::::::;::::�}:?�:::;:::::`:::::::�:�:�::`::::;:`��::{:::'::. �::, ::�.::::::;::::: �::;�; ;::::::::}'>i.;��i£>':r':r: i;:3:: ::::::; ��'�;::��::�::::::::i:;:i:;:::::::�� �:>?::::3:::::::;:�::::::;::::':;;::;;y';:;:; :i:;:::i:::::;;;::.::::;; �:::£::::; <
.. �� :>::::»: .::. ...;:::::>s::::::>::::<: . . .. �: . ..... ::::�'� �'� >:>::: �::.;:. �.
. . .... ::::::::. � :..�':�.....��..... ...........:.�1�.:::. »:.::..�.,�..�: I� .:::;. .:::: � . : �tE :.:::
....:...:::::>�::::•,;;:::., ...:...:..:.. ................................ .f�...�............;.
•:;>::::::;;: :,::.:.:.:;:.>:;.::.:.::.:.:;:.»:.:>:.;:.:.::.:: •.:: .. :::.;:.:;::>:.:;:.;:.;:<.;:.;:.:.:: :. ............................ �......�$.:.�.
.:.�::::::..��`#� :.......::.::::::.:..:::: . . . ..
..........:..............................�. . �:U... .....�:. :: �: . : . :>;::>»>;::>:;::;�::<.::::<.:.:.:.:»:>::::::::;.:<::;.�.>:.:.:;:�:<.:.>:.::.:::;;:<.;::.:,::.;:<.::.::.;;:.;�::<..::.;:.;::.;::.;:.;:.:;:.;:.:.::.:;�:.
:>;::>::>::>::> : > �:::::»:<:::> :::>:::::<:>:; ::.:...............�..:::::::: :......... ......... . .:.r..:���.��ir�.�q���.:: :. ......... . . ..... .... .:
.......... ..:.�:.::...........................................:::::::..........��.....................:::.�.�:::.�:::...................................::.::.:: . . . ............. ::. ,:.;:.::.;:<.�.:� . .: . .::.::.::.::»:.;..;..:..::......:::
>:.;:>:.:.::.:� .:::�::.::::.:>;;:.::.::::.:;>:.::;.::.::.::.::;:.::.:::.::.::.:.::.:�.:..:.::::.:.::.;:.::::.>::.::;:;�;; :.::.::.::.::.>:::.::.::.::::::::::::::::..:.::.:::::«.::.::.:�::.::.:>:.:>:»::.>:.::.:.:�:.: . . . : .;:.::.:::.::.: .. . ::::: .::.:: :..: . . :::.:.:.:.::.:..�.: :. ...;:;
..........i�.:.:�::::: .:::::.�::::::.�:.�::::.�::..� :.:.......:.:.:::::. .::::::::::.�:::::::::::.:�:: :.......:.:.�::::::::: :.:::::::.�:::.:�::::::::::::::..... ....: ..
;::::::::.� ::::: :......... ..........................:...:.:::::::::........ ............................:.:::::::::.:.........................................::::..::::.
.................:....... .........................................::...:... ...................................... :.....:...................................:..... ... :�.��:::;::: >::::::��c�.»>::.:::::::;:. ;..: <:»:::::::�� .�: : : . �::>
. ��At��..... ... ��.�. ...
. .. ...... �
....... . �...
. ................. .........................� .::::::: ::.::.:: : ::.:::.�:..:::::::: :.;:.;:.::;:.>:.;:;;<.;
1 Minneapolis . Xerxes•Avenue & 41st Street 850 240 7 p
2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1043 245 5 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Stx+eet & Helm�t Avenue 1395 -_�� 284 � 32 1
4 Minneapohs Oakland Avenue & 49th Strcet 1820 539 67 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 4788 2329 747 65
d Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 6431 3447 1743 408
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Sireet 1871 530 63 1
8 Minneagolis Longfellow Avenue &. 43rd Strcet 1602 351 16 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga Street 8c Har�ford Avenue 66 2 0 0
10 ' St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 244 6 0 0
11 St: Paul� Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 45 2 0 p
��:>������::>��:::>�������>':::::: :�;`<�':<:��:>:;':':::::::::�.:�``.;.:;:>';>..:.;...:s:::<::::::�:::::::<�:�:: :::::::::«;>'.;:::<>>;<::;..<::>:::::;:;::>:><..:::;.:;::>::.>::::;>::.:::;::::.:.::>.�::.;�.;:::::>:::::::>::::::::::>::::`::>�:>:::::::�::<:::�����:::::€�::::>;;:::::: ::;::::�><:;:::::;:::<���;:>`::::> :::::::::::: :::::::::::::»::;:�����::s:;::::<:;::�::::' :::�:::::>::::>::::::::;<:::<::::::::::»
. ..���.�'.�.::.�::::.� ::: :.. ....... .......�.::::::.�:::. ............ ......:::::: .::.�::.�:::. ............ ......:..::: ::::::.�::.:
.:::.
::::
........�:��€.�.:
.......�-...... .
:.;:.:
<::::>.:::.::::.:.:.:::.;:�:::<� :.::......::::.: :..�.:�::.�:::::::: :.................:. ................ . � � :: . . ::.;;:::.::.:;;:.:::::................ :.:::............... . .... ............�.::::::::.�: ::::.::..... .........:..
.............:.:.. :.:. �:: .............................:.::::: ............. ................: :.::::::: :...........................!g�€:+�`�....... .......... :.:::::.�: ....... .................... �.: �:.: ........................... ...:..:::::: �............
..............
........................................::::.�:::::::::::::..:.�::::::::::::::.;:.;:.::.:;: ;::.;:.;;;;:.;:.;:.::.;:.;;:.:;;::.: ::>::::;:::::::>::>::>:::>:::::�:::::> ::::>::::>::>::>:>::>::>:::><::>::>:::::
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of MQhican Court 1284 2A0 1 0 �
14 Eagan First Street & McS�se Street 1973 S26 2g p
15 Mendota Heights Cullen Strcet & Lexingta�n Avenue 1138 256 11 0
16 Eagan Avalon Avenue 8c V'�las Lane 1687 513 35 0
17 Bloomington 84th Stx�eet & 4th Avenue 221 29 8 0�
18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 4'79 263 71 5
19 Bloomin�ttm 16th Avenue & 84th Sireet 371 161 23 0
2U Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 217 31 5 0
21 Inver Cnove Iieights Barbaza Avenue & 67th Street 643 114 2 p
22 Inver Grove Heights • Anne Marie Trail 579 82 0 p
23 Mendota Iieights End of Kendon Avenue 1777 846 274 19
� �g� C�apel Lane & Wren Lane 1324 252 2 0
* Site 12 is experiencing equipment problems.
rr
Page 14 Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs ,
( 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
, , �; . ., �, , . . �', . . �i
i.
RMT #l: Xerxes A�e. & 41st S�
Minneapolis
RMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave.
Minneapolis
RiVIT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
Minneapolis
RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St.
Minneapolis
Aviada�n Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 15
Nietropol�tan Airports C:ommission
Ten Loudest A.irct°ait Iitois� Events Identified
RM7C #5: 12th Ave. & 58th S�
Minnea.polis
ItMT #'7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
Richfield
RMT #6: 2Sth Ave. & 57th St.
Minneapolis
RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
Minneapolis
Page 16 Aviati� Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
. 1 �, , • � , , � ;• ' 1;
.
RMT #9: Saratoga S� & Hartford Ave.
St. Paul
RMT #11: Finn St. & Scheffer A�e.
St. Paul
RMT #10: Itasca A�e. & Bowdoin St.
S� Paul
itMT #12: Alton St. & Rockwood Ave.
S� Paul
Aviatioai Noise 8c Satellite Programs
Page 17
Metr�palitan Airports Commission
�.
Ten I.oud.est Aircraft Noise Events Identified
R1�iT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court
Mendota Heights
RMT #15: Cullon St. & I.exington Ave.
Mendota Heights
RMT #14: lst S�. & McKee S�
Eagan
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
Eagan
Page 18 Aviatia�n Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�
'Ten I,oudest A,�r�raft Noise �venis Icient�fied
RMT #17: 84th St. & 4th Ave.
Bloomington
RMT #19: 16th A�e. & 84th St.
Bloomington
RMT #18: 75th St. & 17th Ave.
Richfield
RMT #20: 75th St. & 3rd A�e.
Richfield
Aviatioai Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 19
MetroPolitan Airports Commission
Z'en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
Inver Grove Heights
RMT #23: End of Kenndora Ave.
Mendota Heights
RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail (
Inver Grove Heights
RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
Eagan
Page 20 Aviaac� Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�
Flight 'I�rack �ase 1VIap
Airport 1Voise and Operations Monitoa�ing System
<<
Aviaticxi Noise 8c Satellite Programs
Page 21
;,;11 u r . ``\\':\' ����,�
. i , �..\\
1•� i � `��
�1� `, \���, �
, M��-
_ ,,1 ' ' ,`\,`\� . �"
_ : ���,�„ : ����\ `��
n. ; � .. c��+�
,�' ° ,;►,,� :;. � . ��a•,;�;
~ .�,.��,�. -_ -
:'. , ,,� ,
._ ,�,.,.,....,.. . _..._ � ::� - -_.._._. _ _ . -
� . ..� _
r'Qc ,, .
:,��
�..� �,
���t� -. ��•'
��: ,
�;;,.,,��� ������ � ,�
►\�����.•. ,���Il,ic� :,�
� ��
. . . , .. _ «�,
�-- •
�:�, ,
'( > � � ��i a��''� w �\, `��\�
i�4���1 �, ., ,," � \\\ .�\ �� fj `�' �"'���i-
��;\,J. � r{ �I � _ �a •`:_=`�,��j `� �� «►
. � � .... \ �
,a.ii� 5��.,��i'�, � .������1�' ����\'�
� i. .a�:. ���, r .
. ��`\`�ll,t�i �� \ r���:�
+. �� \a � � �� „���\����� � �� ..�
�. � � � .,�,,...�L%'� •°
r�.— . ` ���1� � IA; �, •�' ♦ i s 1�1► "'���
. 's' :. �� ��E ����������\b�, : �\��i>\
� � � \\\��• �
'-�I�wG�s _�'M � }� e �q�/ c —
iyN�%/� � ,��� ��� r ��,,:
i1�a �� � . r ��
Slf �� ����j 1 /� �� �
� � f�//�//II i�i i . .
'9.`�\`� . . �/�� /�� 4 . r .
. �,� � o� r n �
1 �{ ��r � ��-.�;y� � � ! � �.������ � .
; r i
at
� -��„ �����j`'
J„ �H���`,,r� ����
�.-~ .. yl��, t��'1�
� - ,\
+f i ♦ �'t�lli
� : � � J�� I :
���� `� `�� �r I �
�'-`�i�^��\a.�\ � �
�.��►•��.��%'"��� ��\C.: -' .�
:=�..""'! '
►�� ���'�.���\`f� .
�'��I��.,�'�\�� ������
v
r�����,���\ t .��� \��_' . ... . . . ..
' . t . :
�� ::�\\\�\\`\� ''`�. �� .. � :.
♦ ��.��\��\ \�� ��. • i � � • i
. � � �\\�\`;l\�� ` :
\�������`iu�, " � �. � �
��'�• �L\ � ��1� � , \�-'`. .'
_ : \\` \\` �' = �
� : �.
- — �
�\��� ', •` �� ���\
_. .)ii►.��`��� �\
..,.. :.�
�� �� � � �,
�%� ' ,���i ��� � , ,
%��� `.�b:�j �►,..,�
II� . ` I�� �'
\\
� . �.���! ��,.
� �� ���.�� � t � �'
��+���l���/ � \��:���.:
� . \ .'•�'«�. j/ i "� ��
� ' „ `'��
. • . � ,`c.. c�\ .�
1t 1��� \ '�`�I
� . . . . . . . . ♦ . 1,, ,, `. ;� ` . ; (
' � � . . � �.. i � 1 . :\ !j; S\�
� • � � �\ \
. • '1'�,\�.\
• ''' \�\ \ 1 ;1 �1 \. ��
.. ... . . . . .._ . •i.,:�tl�. .
iij` , ` \\�- F ,���.
:� �a\�•
i;� `. \\�,' �,. �. �l�
:���° : ' � :'\` / �. ���� ���
'� �. �; �'"��`"ylr�
, : �' `'-�,`'°.; i
_ ° � :;, •; � •,.��,
— : � �.��`�1.,``�
.: _ ' c ����� � , � �\\���.�,
,,
:.
�� � ��������II �,�� .. `\\�!�:�_..
: � ao �I�
��d/i ��,, aW%'1y�N ��.
• ��'�I/�', �% • ' / �r '
r /i.. . ..... .. _. .w _ ..✓ _. ,, _ . ...... . . � . .. . .. . . ,
.. ., ..•. + '-._ .
: ' �� s,\� �11� �i, �
``• � � s'\� � /i/� '
i�._.. r� 1\i�` �'�If� �%,��t � i. '
� 'i�"1\► \ 1 L /I I � � �
�''������� �� !I �I/l/� '.
`��\j�:� ~� • ', i 1 � f �.
��11�� •�!'-�� .
_���►u► �.
i►,�!I�'/i ����\\\�
�►. >�U.�•�..o.: \� : . •` �
��– �...�. .
� � T.4��. �.�1►\,�`\ � l2 ..'. ��.
�>:.:�=� ..�.. _ � � � ,
- .. . . , �
� ��.:�►.\...� ,-
:�\\� �y�
,\��� �,�;��i� _
���� ` - �..:� �
:. � � :'
. �- : �,
:�:: �.
„ �\ ` '.
11rr: � '� �� `\?. �'�',
�+r -., �- " 1 � �:.. � �� � .
/ � ^;'���� �, �. �..
���_:"� fl ��.�.. 7'��J,//i'.�
�r,:�..�i•
>, �/I�`�...
r. �� ,�
� � �� 1�1��i�� '�
!� �/ ' \ �� � '
�
�� �� ��
:��� p�� ��.����'
� `�. � ���
��� ���
�� � �
�
i �i �.°
t
_ � ' � '`:
�.= i,
a, i_ �?" e� ���, _,, �!��
'` ,l�i': �tlYas l�� 1 "��j`\�`;\,, *' l �I���`"►'
t�{ ! ! �i I�s Y F � �_ ♦ \` ',d(.a
ti s�� t��h S : � ��\ � r'
... 1 � t�,{�� .. \��� l I
� . � :,, ���!r- ,
t �. i \I i \\ � ``� ///
`�t 4 { � .. \ 1 ` �.. ! �I
� . 1 t �•\`�,
� � ♦ .�. �,;. 1-�
., . + �1 �,r, � �\�►`�
- � „> `� -
,c
� � J 6 �1I 1 . .. 7
/ � /
t' 1r1 �>�/ ,I,j � //. � ` p Tr '�► �i)b �.
'+ +Ip.%� f" ��" /��% �
.•. .���. �M, I►Iv ':,I/I `
� � � .�� /
v , r �, e
. � r �:.:�! � ,�. � ! _
C.. \"\1 �� ♦` _
�� \{�I/ ��' K
� \ \�1 �,�..' 1\ �/��
� � � � .. � . �,���+��i�l�` .
� �. �. \ \ ��/�4� �
!`",���r..� �-��j ._ ��'.
��r `\� � `
i-1►�'�-'.1. � "• �•
"���_ \�r\ .
����\��i \ ..
+'= _
'�� �_
� \\\\ 1� \
� ���.�i�\\ � \ t �
�, .
.
� . . .
�-� � . .
.��E Z�\\���. �' �� td�� :��. ' ` . } : .
\-•� �� . ` r _ ' y'
� `� ♦ 1 � �
,� �����\��\`�� �,,� 1' � � -
`;�\�, , � �I�:
`",; _ .�„\ T \°"u �r, , � ;
♦
i����. �.�.. � � „
_� Z � �
�
� �.' � �� �,� �� � � .. b
�:��.��`..�.. -
� �
. .. �.�:i\.. ��� .4\ r . .
��`��
�' � . � . . '. .'
'�` � '� \�1\ i
�► - ;��1�`\` . �i
„�. �V�\ ���. .��
n�'iI � ����� I'� \
/ii � : �r r��� t' i� �r
1.° `I '�.
r':" 'r,, i .:�;� \.. .
, '�'?r+���1i�.. .
• �c► i; i ':
���;. �..'q/.• <- �:
�� ��� i/�i ,, . •.:` -
. � . .'� '�'� : ��r
. ; �` '� �
�.r jf \ �
5��� . . � � . . • � `r� � � i,�,: � -,`\
[� � !�. � ^� '� �\:� � `\,
.... .. . .. . . \ �. . .. ��.��
i ) i , , `i. , � \ \:.
<;j� ���� � y
�`��`::�.•� ��/
;� � �.
: � �� � -�,��. �r.
�
��� l�,�,/;��
I � . _ `�a• � ` ,
�4,►�� ; ��`���
1` ��,���►��\�'�� °' � \�\
p��n , . � ,. -
�► �n .,
._. _,�'' .r- �;.
�
;.v ;� � i \'.�U4 �\
: `�`. ���; ���
_ \ :\`�: ',�, �1�'�
� � �... �� �� . -�;i
� �= �,�� � `;� "�� �
�►1�\�
`..: a�r`��.
.. --i*..,�..\�
�''_..iAl��,��`�.'::,`'��°��� ..
: �`\. �p�\/: �.i; S'. �
`-��':�I���� . -
�<:�;�„_.•<.�...�, �.,, '
� �
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Analysis o� Aircr°aft 1�Toise Events - Aircraft I.,dn d�6(t�.)
Janu�.ry Ol to �january 31,1996
Noise Monitor Locations
:'>'�:<���T�a�;��::::;��>:� �:<;:::>#�;�<:��:��: ;';'�::;��>"...<.......;>: �:}:��:y�;.....::.'::�>:�:`: �_��::';'��`�'..`_��:::>`;>:' :::>�;�€`'��`:�:::;::;. :::::::,;::>:::>.;;..<::<:: :::'�:;'��':>.::::::>�: :::>�:::;`.`.."<::::::;:;;';;.<::`����>��><::<:::; :<:::;'`'��:'��'`�`'::<` �::::;::`:».:>;;'<.';;:::<:: >::::;�;:>.<::;;;:::::;::.;
.::::::::::::::::.�::.::.::.:::.:.:.:::.::.:::::.::::..:.::�:.:�::.:.::.:::�,�. ��::::::..:::::� �...... �......:.:.:::.: ::. � ��,a ���.... . .:.
.::::::: . :.: ::. :.......... ...:: ..:: ::::.. :. :................ ............::.... .::::::::.:: �:::::. .:::::::::::::: ... .................. ................: . :.: �.::::. : :.::::::. �:: .::: .: ...: ............ .................. ::: ���:..:
1 62.2 64.'Z 66.8 65.3 71.4 72.4 50.7 47.0 46.3 46.3 41.0 *
2 58.6 61.3 65.5 64.8 74.9 77.7 68.7 61.3 50.3 51.1 46.9 *
3 * 58.9 64.9 61.3 71.7 '71.6 59.6 66.6 54.7 52.0 55.1 *
4 59.1 58.1 59.5 64.7 72.8 7$.9 70.2 59.7 48.6 51.5 51.2 *
5 58.1 56.4 60.3 63.4 73.1 76.5 66.1 61.3 44.3 48.4 42.2 *
6 56.6 53.7 58.7 63.7 73.8 76.3 65.4 58.2 49.2 46.1 45.1 *
7 50.2 53.6 58.2 58.1 70.6 74.8 59.6 56.0 49.8 57.3 42.7 *
$ 55.6 57.1 58.7 62.1 73.2 76.7 62.6 56.7 58.9 66.1 43.0 *
9 58.7 60.4 63.6 62.3 75.0 78.1 66.4 60.1 56.3 62.5 42.4 *
10 62.8 63.6 69.0 65.9 * 73.7 * 48.4 55.9 63.4 45.9 *
11 58.0 60.5 65.9 65.8 76.1 79.0 68.3 61.1 41.3 50.1 45.6 *
12 � 57.4 59.2 60.9 61.0 73.6 77.7 67.9 58.3 51.2 53.7 45.8 *
13 55.2 61.0 64.4 65.6 74.3 78.1 65.8 58.3 * 49.3 41.3 *
14 52,9 48.2 57.3 58.5 61.7 69.2 52.2 46.2 * * � *
15 58.8 62.0 65.6 64.3 70.2 70.9 53.0 40.2 * 48.0 40.7 *
16 60.2 61.6 66.5 67.6 75.4 79.3 67.4 62.6 43.8 48.4 * *
17 62.7 62.3 69.6 67.3 77.1 71.2 61.4 50.8 * 41.6 * �
18 55.6 59.1 58.3 65.3 75.2 78.7 * 63.0 47.6 * 46.7 *
19 63.0 63.9 66.6 65.9 78.6 81.3 * 68.1 46.6 * 44.6 *
20 56.6 * 66.3 64.5 72.8 70.1 * 50.8 49.5 52.2 44.2 *
21 55.3 58.4 63.8 60.8 69.0 69.4 * 49.1 47.5 57.4 45.9 �
22 57.4 55.1 57.2 61.8 71.9 76.2 * 60.8 46.1 44.3 55.8 *
23 58.7 58.2 63:7 63.2 74.8 78.4 * 61.'7 50.7 51.3 �
24 60.4 59.6 61.3 64.9 74.7 78.5 * 62.1 50.9 53.8 50.1 *
25 59.8 60.3 65.5 63.8 72.6 76.3 * 60.2 43.6 49.9 46.4 *
26 53.4 57.4 62.6 65.9 73.7 76.7 � 60.4 46.7 51.7 47.6 *
27 56.6 54.3 57.1 58.7 70.2 75.7 * 61.9 � � * *
28 60.7 62.9 68.2 64.0 73.4 70.2 * 49.9 56.2 59.9 41.4 �
29 562 50.4 52.0 55.4 71.1 74.7 * 51.6 * � * *
30 61.5 60.7 61.2 62.9 74.0 76.9 * 59.5 43.0 53.6 50.2 *
31 59.2 59.2 59.5 62.1 71.0 76.9 * 60.4 * 43.5 * �
Mo. Ldn 61.5 60.8 65.1 64.9 �4.6 77.9 67.4 ' 63.5� 52.8 58.7 53.3 *
* Gess than twenty four hours ofdata amilable (�
Aviatioai Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 2'7
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�lnalysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn d�(A)
January Ol to January 31, i996
Noise Monitor Locations
.':.::;;,�::>:::::.;:::,.:::.;;:;: :.<:;�:;:::.`:�?;:' :;::::<'.'.�:?;>;.;..';;`..:;:`>::::>..;.::.:::.;.:';...;:::>:;;.> .:::::::::::::��`���.��'�:;"::>:::�:; :<:::;`.>�.>;'.;.<:':::>;>::::�����`:��:::�'��::::;� ::::`'`:::;._»::>::....::: :::;;;{.»;;:>::�::..>..::;.:.<;�:::-.;<:..:::.:::::> �:;:�:;�.<`.`.:<::���`:>�:� ::::;:':::;::':��`:`:.:.�:.
��� 1.� ��� �� �`�� ���.;;::::>::.��::�::<:>.::»�1�..�.�...�.::> .� �.. �� �2 �.'�..�.�..>::::;: �:...
1 62.7 71.2 64.4 69.7 59.8 5'7.0 * 40.5 64.9 59.8 67.7 65.6
2 58.0 64.4 60.2 67.1 50.9 44.1 47.1 46.5 55.9 55.6 67.8 61.6
3 59.9 66.6 60.0 66.8 57.0 56.7 44:4 * 60.3 59.3 72.6 64.0
4 * 65.4 * 69.1 58.9 63.4 50.4 48.3 * 51.5 49.4 57.5
5 * 62.4 * 69.5 63.6 67.2 67.3 63.'1 50.1 56.3 51.'7 60.6
6 47.1 64.5 58.4 70.6 65.2 69.5 65.8 56.8 40.3 54.4 57.4 62.2
7 57.8 63.9 65.5 68.2 52.8 67.9 63.3 54.9 52.5 58.2 69.6 61.5
$ 51.7 61.9 57.6 65.5 59.7 67.8 64.5 54.8 51.2 55.5 60.8 58.4
9 * 63.3 56.6 68.4 56.5 74.5 63.7 54.3 * 57.3 57.8 61.0
10 62.9 68.4 64.2 68.3 53.6 68.4 66.5 * 60.3 61.4 '72.2 64.6
11 56.9 64.5 60.4 66.2 56.3 67.3 67.2 52.3 55.2 61.4 71.7 63.4
• 12 57.9 65.9 60.8 '70.4 63.7 64.9 68.4 55.0 47.2 60.2 67.6 63.9
13 47.0 66.2 55.4 69.6 55.7 69.1 66.5 59.9 * 58.'7 62.5 70.1
14 * 60.8' * 65.7 64.7 71.5 66.6 56.8 * SSJ 50.5 60.2
15 58.4 65.5 60.5. 64.3 50.9 51.4 * * 57.6 55.1 69.4 61.0
16 58.2 63.4 61.5 67.4 43S 42.4 * 48.3 52.0 56.7 71.4 59.1
17 59.3 65.7 61.2 68.3 40.7 48.4 * 46.0 56.0 58.3 71.4 62.7
18 * 64.3 * 71.6 42.8 48.0 * 46.6 40.9 59.9 54.1 65.6
19 47.3 65.7 49.0 70.6 56.5 * 60.9 59.3 44.9 60.4 59.4 65.4
20 61.8 70.0 65.2 68.4 * 46.6 � 47.2 60.7 61.0 74.0 65.3
21 62.0 65.5 63.3 66.3 * 64.8 51.6 * 59.1 62.0 71.1 62.8
22 * 62.2 * 66.7 43.1 57.0 56.0 58.2 50.6 51.6 45.7 57.2
23 42.7 61.2 * 68.6 54.6 56.0 47.4 52.3 47.1 54.1 47.8 58.9
24 * 60.9 * 68.1 51.3 67.9 62.8 44.3 47.0 53.0 55.3 60.0
25 57.5 64.4 63.0 66.6 * 48.3 44.7 * 54.'7 56.5 69.3 60.4
26 55.9 65.1 56.0 69.0 45.9 52.6 45.7 51.6 56.1 58.3 66.9 62.9
27 * 60.0 * 67.6 63.0 68.2 56.4 52.5 * 52.1 52.0 58.4
28 59.8 66.8 64.2 68.5 * * * * 55.3 61.0 74.1 64.2
29 * 62.2 * 67.4 * 60.6 * * * 51.1 54.6 60.4
30_ * 64.3 55.7 70.7 55.7 64.0 52.4 52.3 * 57.4 * 62.3
31 * 64.3 55.0 70.0 43,6 56.9 56.0 51.5 44.7 58.1 53.3 63.3
Mo. Ldn 60.4 66.9 65.0 70.4 60.4 66.8 63.0 58.1 57.8 59.8 '71.0 66.9
* Less than twenty fou� Fnours of data available
Page 28 Aviati� 1Voise & Satellite Programs
� �