HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.a. Airport Planning Process / S.O.A.R. UpdateCITY OF ROSE4OUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Airport Planning Process Update
AGENDA SECTION:
S.O.A.R. UPDATE
DEPARTMENT HEADS
REPORT
PREPARED BY: STEPHAN JILK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
AGENDA If.EM #
3A
ATTACHMENTS: DUAL TRACK UPDATE,
APPROVED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, DRAFT DECISION DOCUMENT
Representatives of SOAR will be present to provide a -monthly update on
their organizations' activities.
I will not be giving a Technical Committee update since there was no
meeting in the month of August
I will be making a few comments on the attached information:
1) August newsletter on the planning process.
2) Notice of the public hearing to be held on the "site selection
criteria" to be held on September 1, 1992 at Rosemount High School.
3) The "Draft" of the Decision Document on which comments will be taken
at two public hearings in September of this year. This document will
be used as the guideline to make a final recommendation to the state
legislature in 1995 for the future if aviation planning in the State
of Minnesota and the location/relocation of theMSPairport.
I would further suggest that we prepare formal comments on behalf of the
City on this document for the September hearings. For that purpose I would
plan on having this item back on the September 15th meeting agenda.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: NONE at this time.
COUNCIL ACTION:
PUBLIC MEETING SET FOR SEPT.1
ON NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION STUDY
A public meeting on the new airport site
selection study will be held Sept. 1 in
Rosemount (see schedule) to discuss the Site
Identification Criteria for a new airport in the
Dakota Search Area.
The Technical Advisory Committee,
which was formed by MAC to advise the
Commission on the Dual Track Planning
Process, is using the criteria to determine
which portions of the search area are suitable
for airport development.
According to Nigel Finney, MAC
Deputy Executive Director, Planning and
Environment, "the Committee has met four
times to date during 1992 and has identified
potential locations in the search area where
an airport could be sited."
Finney says elements of the site selection
process and the master planning process have
been combined so that as sites are identified,
work on alternative runway, terminal and
ground facilities configurations will also be
done.
The Committee has been using a con-
ceptual airport layout in the identification
process, which was developed by the MAC
during a new airport conceptual design study
in 1990. "The conceptual layout enables us
to treat each potential site equally," Finney
says. "However, alternative configurations
will be evaluated for each site."
, Six criteria, which provide broad guide-
lines to define the minimum requirements
for identifying a set of potential sites, have
been developed. "These criteria will help
insure that no pan of the Search Area is elim-
inated prematurely," Finney says, "and will
help choose the best site."
PUBLIC HEARINGS SET FOR SEPT. 22.23
ON DRAFT DUAL TRACK DECISION DOCUMENT
Public hearings will be held on Sept. 22-23
on the "Decision Document" for the Dual
Track Planning Process. The hearings, which
will be held in Rosemount and Richfield (see
schedule), are jointly sponsored by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission and the
Metropolitan Council.
The Decision Document will recom-
mend a long-term aviation strategy for the
Twin Cities, and lay out the key data and
analysis and reasons for the recommenda-
tions. This document will be presented to
the Minnesota Legislature in early 1995.
The draft document fulfills two
purposes:
1) To identify the key questions and
issues that will need to be addressed in the
Decision Document so that research and
studies yield information helpful in making
recommendations;
2) To make sure that the key factors in
recommending a strategy are addressed and
all relevant information is summarized in one
document for public review and debate.
The document outline identifies and
describes eight potential issues relevant to
the final decision: airport operations, ground
access, air service, environmental, economic
development, regional and community
impact, financial and strategic.
SCHEDULE
NEW AIRPORT SITE
SELECTION STUDY
Public Meeting
Tuesday, Sept. 1, 7 p.m.
Rosemount High School
Student Center
3335 142nd Street West
Rosemount
MSP RE -USE STUDY
Public Information Meetings
Monday, Aug. 31, 7-9 p.m.
Eagan City Council Chambers
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan
Thursday, Sept. 3, 7-9 p.m.
Richfield City Council Chambers
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT
PLANNING PROCESS
DECISION DOCUMENT
Public Hearings
Tuesday, Sept. 22, 7-9:30 p.m.
Rosemount High School
Student Center
3335 142nd Street West
Rosemount
Wednesday, Sept. 23, 7-9:30 p.m.
Richfield High School Auditorium
7001 Harriet Avenue South
Richfield
METRO COUNCIL TO CONDUCT INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS AUG. 31
AND SEPT. 3 ON THE MSP AIRPORT RE -USE STUDY
The Metropolitan Council will conduct two
public information meetings Aug. 31 and
Sept. 3 on the Minneapolis -St. Paul (MSP)
International Airport Re -Use Study.
The meetings will be held in Eagan and
Richfield (see schedule).
The MSP Re -Use Task Force, a Council
group which was formed in October 1991, is
planning to make recommendations to the
Council by October 1992 on the possible re-
use of the current airport.
"The planning process has included test-
ing and debating the merits of a series of
alternative future scenarios for the site," says
John Kari, Senior Planner, Metropolitan
Council, "each of which was based on a com-
munity value."
According to Kari, the strategy for pro-
jecting re -use options for the site is to pro-
vide a set of "performance criteria" which can
serve as a framework to guide specific re -use
plans as they are developed.
These performance criteria define the
essential characteristics and priorities for any
redevelopment strategy and include physical,
cultural, historic and environmental
attributes. In addition, there are two types of
implementation criteria - economic and
legal.
For further information on the study,
please call the Metropolitan Council at 291-
8140 for a free publication entitled "MSP
International Airport Re -Use Study: Interim
Working Papers Summary."
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MINNESOTA EIS ADEQUACY FOR DUAL TRACK PROCESS
The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
(EQB) will assume responsibility for deter-
mining adequacy on the final environmental
impact statement (EIS) for the Dual Track
Planning Process.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission,
which is required to prepare the environmen-
tal documentation related to the potential
decision for the Dual Track Airport Planning
Process, had requested EQB's involvement.
"Because this is a major step in the over-
all environmental process," says Nigel
Finney, MAC Deputy Executive Director,
Environment and Planning, "the
Commission requested the EQB to assume
this responsibility. With the State's primary
agency making the adequacy determination,
MAC will not be in a position of evaluating
its own work. This should lend added assur-
ance that the environmental analysis will be
thorough and complete."
The EIS will compare the selected new
airport site and plan, the selected existing
airport development plan, and the "no -build"
alternative.
The MAC will provide financial assis-
tance for the additional resources EQB will
need to enable it to adequately monitor and
participate in the Dual Track process and
environmental review.
For the federal environmental review
process, MAC continues to work closely with
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Dual Track Update is published by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission in an
effort to provide information on the Dual
Track Airport Planning Process.
Please forward any questions or comments
to Jenn Unruh at 726-8189.
Metropolitan Airports Commission y r r R
- � —
- , •6040 28th Avenue South �
.F AUG21'a2Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 _ ® .t?.. 9
683,574 �s
T
Mr. ..'?ePhall Jilk
1 Ci ty Administrator
CITY O �'OS MC'UNT
P C1. iyoy 5!0
i RocGlitount• Mics 55LA68
i
Printed on Recycled Paper
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
T,5 S<Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
r t 6040 - 28th Avenue South MN 55450-2799
a
z Phone. (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
o -
PUBLIC HEARING
NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is currently in the initial phases of the site selection
process for a new airport located in the Dakota Search Area designated by the Metropolitan
Council in late 1991. The initial phase of this effort consists of developing a set of criteria which
will determine which portions of the search area are suitable for airport development.
A Public Hearing will be held to discuss the Site Identification Criteria on Tuesday, September
1, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. at the Rosemount High School Student Center, 3335 142nd Street West,
Rosemount, Minnesota. A copy of the Site Identification Criteria is attached; additional copies
can -be obtained by calling Jenn Unruh at the MAC at 726-8189.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is on rilfirrnatice action employer.
Rehp%pr Airpuris: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTY ELAINE • CRYSTAL 0 FL1 IV ; CI Ot'D • LAKE F.I IO 0 SAINT PACT DO%%'\'I'O\y\
SITE IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA
For the purposes of this site selection study, the airport is defined as the operational area
(runways and taxiways), terminal area, circulation roadways, cargo area, support facilities, and
land required for Federal Runway Protection Zones (RPZ's). In order to treat each site equally,
a "conceptual" airport layout was used in the identification process. This conceptual layout is
a slightly modified version of the layout developed in a 1991 MAC report entitled, "New Air
Carrier Airport Conceptual Design Study and Plan" and portrays the airport in its year 2020
configuration. The conceptual layout encompasses approximately 13,000 acres. Additional
protection for State Safety Zones and for compatible land use could result in a total area of up
to 40,000 acres.
During the site identification process, the entire runway layout can be rotated and
mirrored. Runways will not be significantly shortened or eliminated. A site is defined as both
a specific location and a specific runway orientation. This can lead to sites that are in the same
general area, but because the airport orientation is different, the sites are considered unique.
Site identification criteria will provide broad guidelines to define the minimum
requirements for identifying a set of "potential" sites. This will help insure that no part of the
Search Area is eliminated prematurely. Next, site screening criteria will be used to identify the
most promising "candidate" sites. Finally, site selection criteria will help choose the "best" site.
Based on some preliminary analysis, including input from the Technical Committee, six
(6) criteria were used to identify the potential sites:
1. Airport runways, taxiways and other facilities must be contained within the Search Area;
this is a requirement stipulated in the Legislation. It was also assumed that FAA Runway
Protection Zones and land within FAA Building Restriction Lines (BRL's) should be
contained within the Search Area because the FAA requires airports to purchase this
land.
2. State Safety Zones A and B and the Ldn 65 noise contour may not impact existing
urbanized areas or population centers outside of the Search Area. This criterion will help
minimize safety and noise impacts beyond the limits of the Search Area;
3. Runway layout must maintain the full operational capability of the Conceptual Layout
Design. For site identification purposes, rotation of the runway system as a complete
unit, or mirroring of the runway layout is considered to not reduce capacity. Individual
runways will not be shifted during the site identification phase. The main runways will
be oriented within 45 degrees of an northwest -southeast alignment. Potential sites may
not have more than 50 percent of their land area in common with another site unless
either there is at least a twenty -degree difference in the alignment of their main runways
or they are mirrored layouts.
Revised June 30, 1992
4. No site may be considered which places airport facilities in areas of extensive wetlands.
This criterion recognizes the importance of minimizing the environmental consequences
to these important biotic communities. The wetlands criterion is designed to distinguish
between sites that would have relatively great wetland impacts and those having relatively
small impacts.
5. No site may be considered which would result in ground facilities (terminal, cargo, etc.)
located in floodways. This criterion recognizes the regulatory difficulties in building
structures in a floodway.
6. Avoid physical features not compatible with aircraft overflight (specifically avoid
overflights of the Pine Bend Refinery). The Pine Bend Refinery, located less than 8,000
feet from the northern boundary of the Search Area, contains several tall structures, each
over 240 feet high. Dependent on the location of a specific site, the structures could
dose an obstruction probleiii for the navigable airspace. in addition, smoke stacks within
the refinery occasionally emit steam and flames that may pose a hazard to air navigation.
Revised June 30, 1992
NOTICE OF
Metropolitan Council/Metropolitan Airports Commission
PUBLIC HEARINGS
to receive comments on the draft report,
Twin Cities Aviation Strategy
An Outline of a Decision Document
for the
Dual -Track Major Airport Strategy
-over-
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
When/Where: Tuesday, Sept. 22, 7 pm
Rosemount High School Student Center
3335 142nd St. W.
Rosemount
When/Where: Wednesday, Sept. 23, 7 pm
Richfield High School Auditorium
7001 Harriet Av. S.
Richfield
How to Participate: 1. You may attend one or both of the hearings and offer comments. To
register in advance to speak, please call Jenn Unruh at the
Metropolitan Airports Commission at 726-8189.
2. You may send a letter with comments, which must be received no
later than 5- p.m., Oct. 7, 1992, to:
Nigel Finney, deputy executive director - planning and environment
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 - 28th Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
or
John Kari, senior planner
Metropolitan Council
230 E. 5th St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Copies: Free copies of the public hearing draft may be obtained from the
Metropolitan Council's Data Center by calling 291-8140 or from the
Metropolitan Airports Commission by calling Jenn Unruh at 726-8189.
Questions: Call Jenn Unruh at the Metropolitan Airports Commission (726-8189) or
Donna Mattson at the Metropolitan Council (291-6493).
July 1992
METROPOLTTAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 E Fifth St.
St.. Paul, MN 55101
612 291-6359
Metropolitan Council Publication No. 559-92-044
CONTENTS
Preface.......................................................... ....'it
L DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS ................................ 1
II. CHOOSING AN AVIATION STRATEGY FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA ... 3
III. DECISION DOCUMENT .......................... ........... ......... 6
Outline of Decision Document ........... ....... ......... . • • • • • • • • • . • • 6
Decision Factors & Data and Analysis ...... 7
Decision Factor: Investment Assessment .............................. 7
Decision Factor:
Air Service Quality .................................
8
Decision Factor:
Regional Economic Impacts ..........................
9
Decision Factor:
Regional and Community Impacts .....................
10
Decision Factor:
Environmental Effects ..............................
11
DecisionFactor:
Financial Issues ...................................
12
Regional Strategic Concerns ........................................
13
Preface
This public hearing draft document suggests the outline for a joint final airport planning and
development report ("DECISION DOCUMENT") of Metropolitan Council (Council) and Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) to the Minnesota Legislature on the "dual -track" major airport planning
process in 1995 or 1996.
The DECISION DOCUMENT report is required by state law (MS473.618 Airport Planning and
Development Report):
"WITHIN 180 DAYS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ACTIONS REQUIRED BY SECTION 473.616,
SUBDIVISION 3, THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION SHALL
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE ON THE LONG-RANGE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF
MAJOR AIRPORT FACILITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA. THE REPORT MUST INCLUDE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AGENCIES ON MAJOR AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT IN THE
METROPOLITAN AREA FOR A PROSPECTIVE 30 -YEAR PERIOD AND ON ACQUIRING A SITE FOR
A MAJOR NEW AIRPORT. THE REPORT MUST INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF A
NEW AIRPORT ON PRESENT AND PROPOSED FACILITIES AT THE EXISTING AIRPORT AND ON
THE LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE ECONOMIES. THE REPORT MUST CONTAIN THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AGENCIES ON FINANCIAL PLANNING AND FINANCING FOR A
MAJOR NEW AIRPORT, INCLUDING: COST; COST ALLOCATION; AMORTIZATION OF MAJOR
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE EXISTING AIRPORT BEFORE A TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS; FINANCING
METHODS AND SOURCES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS; LEASE AGREEMENTS AND USER
CHARGES AT A NEW AIRPORT; AND A METHOD OF CAPTURING FOR PUBLIC USES A PORTION
OF THE REVENUE FROM DEVELOPMENT AROUND A NEW AIRPORT."
The DECISION DOCUMENT will recommend a long-term aviation strategy for the Twin Cities, and
lay out the key data and analysis and reasons for the recommendations.
This public hearing draft document fulfills two purposes for the Council and MAC:
• The first is to identify the questions and key issues that will need to be addressed in
the Decision Document so the research and studies undertaken during the next phase
of the dual -track planning process yield information helpful in making the key
recommendations in the DECISION DOCUMENT.
• The second purpose is to make sure that all the key factors in recommending a
strategy are, in fact, addressed and all relevant information is summarized and
extracted in one document for public review and debate. This outline identifies and
describes seven important factors. People are encouraged to review them and suggest
others.
ii
DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Under the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act of 1989 (MS 473.155 and 473.616-619), the
Metropolitan Council (Council) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) are required to,
make recommendations to the legislature about how to meet the long-term aviation needs of the
Twin Cities Area. A six-year time frame was established to complete the dual -track airport planning
effort. The tracks are on a parallel timeline.
Under one track, the MAC was to prepare a plan for the possible expansion of Minneapolis -St. Paul
(MSP) International Airport. A concept plan, MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, was adopted
by the MAC in November 1991.
Under the second track, the Council was to designate a "search area" for a possible replacement
airport. A`search area in east -central Dakota County was selected by the Council in December 1991.
The next steps in the planning involves environmental, economic, community impact and other studies
for both tracks (see Figure 1). An update of the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan is expected
to be completed in 1994. In 1994 the MAC will have selected a site within the much larger search
area for a new airport and will have a development plan for a new airport. The MAC will lead the
new airport planning effort, though the Council will conduct some of the land use and economic
impact studies. In addition, by the end of 1992 the Council must prepare a plan for how MSP can
be re -used if a replacement airport is constructed.
The overall purpose of the dual -track approach is to conduct studies that will give the region - and
the Minnesota Legislature -- information to compare the option of expanding the current airport with
the option of building a new airport in a new location. The major planning activities for 1992 to
1995/1996 period are shown in Figure 1.
In addition, the Council, the MAC and a 15 -member Contingency Planning Committee are annually
monitoring trends in the growth in airport passengers and freight travel, the economy of the region,
and changes in the airline industry, among others, to see if the trends mean changes should be made
to the dual -track approach. The annual monitoring will also give the region the best and most
current information on which to base the decisions which will be made in 1995 or 1996.
1
I
MSP
LONG TEAM
COMP. PLAN I
MAC. NOV.1991 I
I
FIGURE 1
DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
SUMMARY
NEW AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
SITEILAYOUf SITE LAYOUT
SWIPING POfENMI. few ��'*APRIL
LAYOUT/ COMP. MANS
M� COMP. PINS SCOPING RPL SDO
PUBLICMIGS
EIsCOFING
[ PHASE
PUBLIC MIGS
APPoL.1992
MSP DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
AI20 r
FORECASTS
AM 1993
AEO.AMrnative Environmental Document
SO.ScooingCocw w
OS00. Draft Scoping Decision 0ocuffW
SOD.Swpinq Detislon0ocumert
MAC.Mtlrop=AirportsCa Rasion
MC . Metropolitan Council
FM. Federal Av iation Administration
FINAL MD.
SELECT NEW
AIRPORT20M
COW. PIAN
MAC. JAN 1901
MSP
SCOPING
E55COP1NG
MSPO
FAEO,
REPORT,
SOD
AEO,MFr
SELECTIHALMSP
PUBLIC
UP
W.
WIGSMAC
IGS
fEls
HRNG
PLAN
E7�S
or
MAC. JAN 1991
EIS
tVAIINTE
E55COP1NG
DRKT
SPATE
AIRPORT
SELECT
fFDERAL
fFDERAI
FCEDPOOf
SDd06DD.
PUBLIC
fEls
E7�S
or
ALTEItNATN6
PUBLIC MiGS
MAC
NftlG
DOCUMENT
DE
MARCH, 199/
• 19m
IMC. MC
MK
FAA
FAA
WACK Ims
LEGISLAM
CHOOSING AN AVIATION STRATEGY FOR THE TWIN
CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
By 1996, the Minnesota State Legislature will select a long-term aviation strategy for the Twin Cities
Area and for the state. The MAC and Council are following an accelerated planning schedule which
will result in a final report for legislative consideration in 1995. This ambitious schedule represents
a goal of the agencies to address concerns raised because of the uncertainty that exists for persons
potentially impacted by the development of MSP or a new airport.
Overall, the legislature and the citizens of the Twin Cities and the state, need to be in a position to
respond to two questions:
• First, will the region need to make significant investment for additional runway(s) and
terminal capacity (concourses, gates) during the next 25-30 years (2020) or can the
region meet expected demand for air service with only modest investments and
improvements to facilities at MSP?
• Second, if significant investment and additional capacity is needed, where should the
region make those investments -- at MSP or at a new commercial airport in Dakota
County?
The MAC and Council 1989 forecasts show that demand will probably outpace existing capacity by
early in the next century requiring significant investment for capacity improvements. The long term
forecasts for 2020 will be updated in 1993 and used to determine facility requirements. These facility
requirements will be the basis for comparable master plans for both MSP and potential new airport.
The decisions on where and how best to meet future air transportation demand in the region will
take into account how each option will provide air service in terms of physical facilities, operational
efficiency and flexibility, and safety. In addition, the comparison of the options will need to include
cost, economic, community, regional development and environmental impacts.
The DECISION DOCUMENT should extract the information and analysis of the dual -track studies in
a manner so that the differences, similarities and contrasts between the potential public policy options
can be more readily seen and highlighted. To date seven factors have been identified in the 1991
annual contingency planning assessment report as important for making choices among the options -
- expand MSP, build a new airport, and do nothing. These factors are as follows:
• Investment Assessment
• Air Service Quality
a Regional Economic Impacts
3
• Regional and Community Impacts
• Environmental Effects
• Financial Issues
• Regional Strategic Concerns
The information in the DECISION DOCUMENT will be organized like a scorecard (Figure 2). Each
option will be evaluated and graded for a series of analysis topics for each of the factors. There will
be a concise write-up for each topic and an overall summary for each topic by policy option. At this
time the focus should be on whether or not more factors should be added or if some should be
eliminated and combined with others. A similar critique should also be done concerning the analysis
topics. It should be expected, however, that as the dual -track studies are completed additional
analysis topics may be added and existing ones dropped. The focus should be on making an
evaluation of the policy options and highlighting those topics and factors that will help move the
public debate to a decision. Are any important areas missing?
An open question at this time is how the comparison will be made. Should an overall average be
the yardstick? Should some factors be weighted more highly than others?
4
FIGURE 2
DRAFT SCORECARD FOR EVALUATING DUAL -TRACK POLICY OPTIONS
DECISION FACTORS
INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT
Net Capacity
Cost Effectiveness
Costs/Benefits
Risk of Low Return
Social Cost/Benefit
AIR SERVICE
Level of Service
Fares
Hubbing
International
System Integration
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Short Term
Long Term
Improved Economic Structure
REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Airport Environs
Infrastructure Implications
Accessibility
ENVIRONMENTAL
Natural
Noise/Overflight
Indirect (air quality, etc.)
Ability to Mitigate
FINANCIAL ISSUES
Feasibility
Effect on Regional Finance
Effect on Airlines
Effect on Region
STRATEGIC CONCERNS
Technical Flexibility
Economic Flexibility
Vision of the Region
Technology
Political/institutional
THE SCORECARD
The scorecard above summarizes the kind of information needed to evaluate the aviation options and to select the
most suitable aviation strategy. This scorecard, or one like it, serves two purposes. It helps explicitly identify the
data needed for an informed decision. Much of this data can be distilled into one summary statistic in the social
cost/benefit analysis. However, the scorecard can also help evaluate single factors that are especially important
and/or consider factors that may be impossible to put a dollar figure on for inclusion in the summary cost/benefit
analysis.
5
DECISION DOCUMENT
OUTLINE OF DECISION DOCUMENT
A proposed outline for the Decision Document is shown in the Figure 3. The executive summary
will highlight the major findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Council and the MAC.
The second section will summarize the dual -track metropolitan airport planning process from 1989
to 1995/1996. The third and largest section will summarize data and analysis. The long-term forecasts
of aviation activity and the major underlying assumptions will begin this section. The remaining part
of this section will summarize the data and analysis of the dual track studies. This information will
be organized under the seven decision factors. An initial set of questions to be addressed by the data
and analysis is discussed below. The final three sections will include findings, conclusions and
recommendations.
DUA L -TRACK DECISION DOCUMENT
Part I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Major Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
Part II DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Part III DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING -- SUMMARY OF DATA & ANALYSIS
A. Long -Range Forecasts of Aviation Activity
B. Decision Factors & Data and Analysis
• Investment Assessment
Air Service Quality
• Regional Economic Impacts
• Regional and Community Impacts
• Environmental Effects
• Financial Issues
• Regional Strategic Concerns
C. Decision Scorecard
Part IV FINDINGS
Part V CONCLUSIONS
Part VI RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE
C
DECISION FACTORS & DATA AND ANALYSIS
DECISION FACTOR: INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT
The primary policy concern is to have adequate capacity to meet the air transportation needs. The
existence of a full range of aviation services is central to the long-term economic and social well-being
of the Metropolitan Area. In the planning and development of airport facilities, it is not unusual to
have long lead times between project identification and project construction and operation. This
situation requires looking out long-term and recognizing the potential risks. The key issues for major
airport investment decisions involve how effective and flexible an option is in meeting the future
capacity objectives, the relationship between costs and benefits and what the relative risks of making
investments too soon or too late.
Analysis Topic: Net Capacity
• How much capacity and flexibility for expansion in relationship to the forecasted demand does
the option provide?
• What are the assumptions regarding technology for each option and their impact on net
capacity?
Analysis Topic Cost Effectiveness
• Does the option provide capacity at a reasonable cost per passenger or per flight --that is, is it
cost-effective?
• What is the cost per operation of each option at different levels of activityldemand? What is the
cost in future years if demand and airport use increase?
Analysis Topic: Costs/Benefits
• Do the benefits of the option justify the costs of the project?
Analysis Topic: Risk of Low Return
• What is the risk of low return for each option? Is this acceptable or not?
• What is the risk of being wrong, of having too much or too little capacity?
• What will it cost if the region guesses high or low -- what are the financial and economic
penalties if there is not enough activity to cover operating costs and debt service and what if
there is not -enough capacity that leads to unacceptable delays, perhaps even a limit on air
traffic?
Analysis Topic: Social Cost/Benefits
• What are the costs of aircraft noise and traffic on the well being of nearby residents
• Do the social benefits and costs of the option justify the costs of the project?
7
DECISION FACTOR: AIR SERVICE QUALITY
How good should the quality of air service be for the Twin Cities Region and the State of Minnesota
as provided by the major commercial airport? Aviation goals call for the major airport to provide
a high level air service for the residents and businesses in the Twin Cities Area, the state and the
upper midwest region it serves. The airport facilities and services should enhance and maintain the
Twin Cities as a major hub airport in the national system, maintain and increase the frequency of
service and nonstop access to major national and regional markets, promote and facilitate the
expansion of direct international service, promote air cargo goods movement to regional, national and
international markets.
Analysis Topic: Level of Service
• What is the range of choices available to passengers under each option -- scheduling and cities
served by nonstop and direct flights.
• How will cargo demand be affected by the airport option's capacity, distance from regional
business centers or by passenger services?
• What impacts will technological advances and substitutions for air travel have?
Analysis Topic: Fares
• What is the range of choices available to passengers under each option -- fare levels?
Analysis Topic: Hubbing
• How well will the options maintain and enhance the Twin Cities area as an airline hub?
Analysis Topic: International
• What is the range of choices available to passengers under each option -- breadth of
international service?
Analysis Topic: System Integration
• What facilities and improvements are committed and/or planned at competitive airports (such
as Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Denver)?
• What are the potential changes in the airline industry and what are their likely impacts on the
Twin Cities?
0 What is the current role and what future role could the regional reliever airports play?
DECISION FACTOR: REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Air service plays an important role in fostering regional economic prosperity. The aviation industry
provides the region with accessibility to and from other parts of the United States and the world. It
is a major force in the regional economy. The key economic questions involve what airport
investments will do in the short term, over the long-term and how will they affect regional economic
growth and development patterns.
Analysis Topic: Short Term
• How do the options differ in their short-term relocation and employment effects? Do they differ
in their long-term impact on regional growth and stability?
Analysis Topic: Long Term
• What kind of changes are likely in the level and character of economic activity fostered by each
option for region and state.
• Where within the region will new businesses be likely to locate under each option?
Analysis Topic: Improved Economic Structure
• What kinds of businesses will be attracted and how will they affect local employment residential
patterns, income, character and quality of life?
• Who benefits and who is burdened by each option?
• Overall, how well do these economic changes support the long-term goals of the Twin Cities
region and the state?
G�
DECISION FACTOR: REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS
How will the airport options impact people, communities and regional land use and development
patterns? Although it may be difficult to attach dollar values to these types of impacts, the influence
that airport operations (on-site employment, aircraft operations, passengers, freight, etc.) and related
infrastructure (highways, public utilities, etc.) have investment they must be considered in evaluating
the options.
Analysis Topic: Airport Environs
• What changes would be set in motion by each option and how would the options affect the
surrounding community and the region as a whole in terms if land use and development
patterns?
• -What are the land -use implications of these effects on various parts of the region? What
happens to business activity if only modest changes are made at MSP?
• How will the provision of air cargo affect future land use patters, the mix of cargo and
passenger demand and, ultimately, air service quality?
• What is the current and anticipated use of land adjacent to the airport= agricultura4 residentia4
commercial; industrial?
• How will the land area needed for expansion be acquired and who would be affected?
Analysis Topic: Infrastructure Implications
• What is the adequacy of the infrastructure for projected land uses.
• Will more investment in local transportation infrastructure be needed to satisfy aviation -
stimulated growth?
Analysis Topic: Accessibility
• -What are the travel distances and travel times for the options from various major activity centers
in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and cities in Greater Minnesota?
10
DECISION FACTOR: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Airport development and operation, whether at the existing airport or at a new site, will involve have
environmental impacts which will need to be addressed. These impacts will be both on- and off-site
and will effect the natural and man-made environments. What are the type and magnitude of
environmental impacts and can identified adverse impacts be mitigated?
Analysis Topic. Natural
• What, and how critica4 are the environmental implications of each option?
What is the impact on the natural environment --wildlife, wetlands, river and groundwater quality.
How does the community evaluate these effects?
Analysis Topic: Noise/Overflight
• What are the noise and overflight effects. How do residents feel about these annoyances?
Analysis Topic: Indirect (air quality, etc.)
• Will airport -based and induced ground transportation significantly affect air quality?
Analysis Topic: Ability to Mitigate
• Is mitigation possible? How much will it cost?
11
DECISION FACTOR: FINANCIAL ISSUES
Is financing likely to be a constraint in the ability to generate sufficient funds to implement the
desired aviation strategy? The key financial issues need to address basic project feasibility and the
ability of the public and the airlines/airport users to cover annual debt and operating costs. Major
airport improvements will be staged over time and supported by a combination sources (federal
grants, user fees and charges, revenue bonds and general obligation revenue bonds).
Analysis Topic. Feasibility
• What is the financial feasibility of the options?
• What are the costs and cost allocation requirements of the options?
• What are the potential financing methods and sources of public and private funds?
Analysis Topic: Effect on Regional Finance
• What will the financial impact be on the region?
• What revenue sources are available to fund each option?
• What will the effect of airport financing on regional or community bond ratings?
• How do the options compare in their impacts on regional/local government finances?
• What method for capturing revenue from development around a new airport could be used for
public purposes? What role should fiscal disparities play?
Analysis Topic: Effect on Airlines
• What will the financial effect be on airlines with each option (lease agreements, user charges and
fees) ?
Analysis Topic. Effect on the Region
• What will be the financial impact on the typical resident of the Twin Cities and the typical
business?
12
DECISION FACTOR: STRATEGIC CONCERNS
No matter how well it appears to satisfy currently estimated needs, the aviation plan will succeed only
if it is implemented in a form that satisfies future needs. No one evaluating the options now can
predict the future with precision. Circumstances are bound to change. New technology may be
introduced, aviation and economic development in general may take a slightly different path, or new
socio-political forces may emerge. The flexibility of each option may provide an important hedge
against uncertainty.
The viability of the aviation strategy may critically depend on its ability to adapt to change and
unforeseen events. Financial flexibility fosters greater efficiency and helps keeps costs to a minimum.
At the same time, the chosen option must be able to fit in with regional plans and objectives. If the
project fits in well with public objectives -- the vision of the region -- or is easily adapted to support
those objectives, it is more likely to garner the support needed for successful implementation. There
are potential implementation roadblocks facing each option and they may differ because each option
affects different populations, interests groups and economic interests, or affects a given interests
differently.
Analysis Topic. Technical Flexibility
• Can engineering design be altered during the construction phase to fit changed circumstances?
Is it possible to stage development differently or shift development schedules?
• Can the finished airport be adapted to respond to shifts in the composition of aviation demand
(for example, a shift from regional to cargo air service)?
Analysis Topic: Economic Flexibility
• Can financial arrangements can be adapted to changes in financial markets, local debt
situations, or cash outflow.
Analysis Topic: Vision of the Region
• How well does each option fit into the overall development strategy for the region as articulated
in the Council's policy plans?
Analysis Topic. Technology
• What technological improvements and changes are expected?
• How might they impact the need for air transportation or improve the capability of existing air
transportation investments?
Analysis Topic. Political/Institutional
• What are the political and institutional issues faced by each option?
13
SOAR Fall Calendar: 1992
Inside:
Important Fall Meetings: Your Last
Chance!
Thanks to SOAR's 1992 Contributors
Update on SOAR Activities
We Need YOU!
This bulletin is provided by Stop Our Airport
Relocation, Inc., a private 501c4 non-profit
organization. SOAR can be reached by calling
612-891-9241 or writing SOAR, PO Box 82,
Rosemount, MN 55068.
Want more information about who to vote for
in November? SOAR is sending out a
candidates survey for the purpose of compiling
results in a report to members. We'll let the
candidates' own views speak for themselves --
and you be the judge. Expect this in October.
SOAR, Inc.
PO Box 82
Rosemount, AlN 55068
Watch the next SOAR newsletter for Hugh,
SOAR's newest member. Hugh is a year-old
barn owl who moved to the Carpenter Nature
Center in Hastings last month to help educate
young and old alike about the wildlife residing
in Dakota County. The only known nesting of
barn owls in Minnesota is in the middle of the
search area; the possibility of more owls will
become known through the Biological Survey.
SOAR is sponsoring Hugh as part of our growing
community education program. If you would be
interested in sponsoring Hugh for a month -- or
more -- please call Jim Wollmering at 437-6534 or
leave a message at the SOAR number. We would
be happy to provide details about the program
upon request to interested sponsors.
THANKS!
SOAR Treasurer
Jim Wollmering
and the entire
Board thanks
these generous
people who make
our programs
possible:
Andrew & Mary Rother
Mrs. Elvina Bauer
Lawrence J. Loonis
Donald Beissel
Mrs. Emma Siebenaler
Greg & Kate Ries
Bette & Rob Behlke
Michael Wittrock
Wollmering Family Trust
Mark Wilmering
Marian A. Stenzel
Nick & Karen Wayslik
Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence
Brochman
Mr. & Mrs. Bernard
Bauer
M.L. Siebanaler
Douglas Webster
Jervis Stoffel
Leroy Wagner
Robert & Janice Johnson
Allan & Brenda Swanson
Cindy Jesberger
Dave Ehrhardt
Bill Bauer
Frank Kasel
Bill Sell
Fran Teuber
Ratgen House Account
Mr. & Mrs. G.E. Stelzel
Mr. & Mrs. Ray
Brochman
Thomas Smith
Harlan Harris
Greg & Marie Wollmering
O.J. Doyle, Jr.
Geo & Cherry Fitzgerald
Mary M. Wollmering
Roger & Pat Fox
Fay & Dennis Wallin
William & Cheryl Raway
Norma Marsh
Richard Tomassoni
Patricia Johnson
Cathy Dickman
Dan & Carol May
Leo & Rosalie Bauer
George & Marguerita
Marschall
Jan & Ruthann Haines
Peter & Kristi Lawless
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas
Nesbitt
Kathleen & Roger Riedl
Rod & Joanne Olson
Karen L. Mogen
Rue Boykin
Carl &Jill Marhauer
Ayrol & Verna Rolf
Clifford & Barbara Moen
John & Joan Conzemius
Joseph & Pamela Harris
Jacob & Betty Girgen
Edward Deutschmann
Agnes Fitch Kobierowski
Terry & Renee Hartman
Joseph Wollmering
Cori & Eric Benson
Ambrey & Sharon
Gartner
Milton & Anne Ulmer
Michael & Rebecca
Creglow
Jerome & Joanne
Dempsey
John & Leona Schutt
George Johnson
Carla Griebel
Margaret Kordsmeyer
Mr. & Mrs. Herb Kimmes
Frank Hegedus
Kathie Majeski
Larry Paulson
Gale & Judy Konrp
Frances Szczesniak
John Hage
Gus & Helen Heinold
Mark Lundberg
David Housker
Francis & D. Trost
Ron & Jeanne Mammer
Leo & Ruth Girgen
Gordy & GiGi Gerlach
David& Krystal Thomson
Merlin & Kay Leine
Arlo & Jeanette Finney
Rogert & Larene Kerr
Gary & Jane Swanson
John A. Neisen
Don Bahis
John Bahis
Ada M. Saufferer
Patrick & Mary Regan
Harry & Marie Jensen
William May, Jr.
S. Dakota Co.
Sportsmen's Club
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Ger-Bes Enterprises
Hastings Farm Service
Homestead Apiaries
Fluegel Elevator
Caturia Funeral Home
Stage Coach Express, Inc.
Vermillion State Bank
Dakota Co. Taxpayers
Association
Law Offices of H.P.
Schoen
Dakota Co. Farm Bureau
Peine Plumbing & Heating
Kasel's Fairway Foods
Caturia Interiors
Keith Horsch Ins. Agency
Schmidtke Fuels, Inc.
1st State Bank of Castle
Rock
Controlled Air, Inc.
P.H. Feely & Son, Inc.
Jacques Seed Co.
Joe's Auto Sales
Ginther's Repair
1st Bank of Rosemount
Carlson Tractor & Impl.
Genz & Ryan
Jensen Associates
Bailey Nurseries, Inc.
Treat Truck
Alexis Bailly Vineyard
Angell's Greenhouse
Bahis Motor & Impl.
Beskau Trucking
Big Daddy's
Carroll's Antiques
City Limits Lanes
Corcoran Equip & Appls.
Corrigan Electric
Don't Super Valu
Emily's Bakery
Fancy That
F F S - Mark Wollmering
Hastings Co-op Creamery
House of Coates
Joanne's Beauty Solon
Just Thinking Book Store
Larry's Standard
Local Oil Co.
Loch's Pharmacy
Master Transmission
Napa Auto Parts
Polka Dairy Inc.
Rother Machine
Sears of Hastings
Tom's Super Valu
Stin Haus
Werner Implement
Wiederholt's Super Club
Zephyr Cleaners
Major In -Kind Donors
Fredrickson & Byron,
Carroll Law Firm
Jim & Judy Wollmering
Wustenberg Consulting
Drewry Communications
Joan & Jim Ryan
Gloria & Ron Pinke
Nic Leifeld
Greg Fox
Rep. & Mrs. Dennis
Ozment
Dennis Ozment
Sheila Klassen
Stephen Jilk
Mayor Mike Werner
KDWA-Hastings
And a special thanks to
SOAR's many volunteers
and committee members.
Metropolitan Airports Commission
SOUND INSULATION
PROGRAM OFFICE
AND
DEMONSTRATION HOUSE
The Sound Insulation Program Office and Demonstration House is located at 6314 Standish
Avenue South in Richfield near the end of one of the airport's busiest runways. The home is
owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and will be used by the Center for
Energy and the Urban Environment (CEUE) as the program office.
Three rooms have been sound insulated, with one of these rooms designed to be a "quiet room".
The rest of the home was left as is. People are able to walk from room to room and compare
the different sound levels.
The Demonstration House office phone is 348-9337.
The Demonstration House visitor hours are:
Mondays 11:00 a. in. to 7.-00 p. m. or call 348-3997 for
Tuesdays 9.00 a. m. to 4:00 p. m. an appointment
Location
Principles of sound insulation
Noise enters a house in two ways:
Information
Program Office 348-9337
MAC 726-8100
1) Noise is airborne. Open windows are obvious examples, but noise can enter through
even the smallest cracks. Acoustical caulks, sealants and special weatherstripping
keep the new windows, doors walls and ceilings very tight. Air conditioning ducts have
been baffled. A House Doctor crew has tested the house to make sure there is adequate
ventilation.
2) Noise is structure -borne. Sound will cause a structure to vibrate. This vibration will
transfer the sound directly through a wall or roof, albeit in a diminished manner. Added
mass in the form of additional sheetrock and acoustical windows with thicker panes of
glass have been added to the acoustically treated rooms. This extra weight makes it
harder for a wall or window to vibrated and pass noise through.
3) To make the transfer of structure -borne noise even more difficult, additional space
between panes of glass and discontinuous construction (where a new wall and ceiling,
separated by a gap, is built adjacent to the existing structure) are featured in the dining
"quite" room.
_
POoCil QD M @ IT OR AIT 0 QD
Co
-ibW NSTA 'IT QVINCa T{DONL
TaagA ii The 0errbn5h2a1i0V1 Nouse has +HRee room$ that
have been sound irtsu(afed.
The rest o(^ -Fhe
kbuse has no+ had special acbusfi'ca1 woRK
UP ENTRY clone but S}i l I �rov� des arzounot a 29 d gR
CA wei h}cd decibets closest to huma4,1
gA7� c�Er heaR vn) Horse ►eVel reductbi- mow wrz{
g o t5_tdP�A-.- r A meosuReol o(Atside, it fiakcs a • lodBA CIR°p
O zovvE�
0
Cu+ f+)e pe(2cei ved Ylol Se [r) h8 l -p.
Dow N 51'A 1 RS DEN - New ST -C- 37
�-� MASTERIn- Wihdow54 solid Com evrtRy door
a� O Oo
Q�oo Q�QD
The Quiet Room has been designed t
achieve the highest tevets 4 noise r'L-du
+ion, I+ -PeafuRes J -he 4: howl ng s
• New (�eesi'andtn5o wall and Ceilii
W I* 2 new l ayeRS cF !V YM I bd
• t3a(�'led � shielded AC ducf �n Ceil��
• New STC W window wi+j 5/rb"
IaMim+ed 9I.Q55 and %4"�JQ+e
91Q-65 Se�,aR�*ea by d 4 ' aiiz Sfzx
afR3 layerz of fy&" wall lana ad on
irnside Walls and opRa5e Wall a l ono G
STG 44 Yvihdow in rcom below
aid Rig - ib"l. 15tts ih �laoR
• New tolO cone woad evitlzy doQR
4VhJURUE uV1NU ECOM NeV,r sTC 44+
windoWsI second 51�d ina, 91ass
CI oDR, 2 vrevu Solid cop, -e of ootz5.
avid 2 new layeR.s 4 Y$"Uvail Vd.
QUIET Room See detalk, below.
51"C. -Sound CIa55, The ,hiaolnerk
V /"A
j F�C�Y1 V,
FOP Further Information
m
If you would like additional information `�° Metropolitan Airports Commission
concerning the specifics of the Sound Insulation a
Program, please call your city office or MAC's
consulting firm, the Center for Energy and Urban D
Environment (CEUE) - ph. 348-9337. o Z
� m
O Go
— C1 BloomingtonPaPt 150
- z
5
c _cc 887-9636 o
Ppo M Sound
O
Eagan -
681-4600 Insulallmon
IM 0 Ppo9pam
Mendota Heights -
-1 1- i
t- i1�... 452-1850
a�i _
M nneapolis
..t.... 673-2595 or 673-3192
Y Richfield
861-9716
A prf{grutn.vpou.wircl by the Aletcoplliturt
' I r Ah1wrtd C bmmLc.crrnl in woperation tt •r1h the
cities q%Blnomhr gl xt, Eagan, Atendva Heights.
+." + Al inneapolh. dilel Ri( field.
Sound Insulation Program -
An Overview
A Sound insulation Program is being implemented in
cities adjacent to hlinnealx>lis-St. Paul International
Airport in an ellort to alleviate the impact of aircraft
noise. The program involves modifying homes to reduce
the amount of noise entering from the outside.
'i'hc Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is
working with Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota I leights,
Minneapolis and Richfield in the design and
implementation of tills Suuncl InSnlatiOn Program.
Funding for this "Part 150 Airlxrrt Noise and land Ilse
Compatibility Planning" program is being provided by
both the Federal Aviation Administration (80 percent)
and by MAC (20 percent). The program will begin in
1992 and is expected to continue'over the next several
years.
The FAA determines eligibility for the Sound
Insulation Program according to the Ldn 65 (level
clay/night) exterior noise contour. Each city is
responsible for selecting and prioritizing which homes
receive sound insulation and will notify MAC of the
selections. Although homeowner participation in the
program within this noise contour is not mandatory, it is
encouraged.
Description of the
Sound Insulation Package
Once a home has been designated for sound
insulation, the degree of modifications will be
determined by exterior noise level, construction type,
and ratio of window/wall area. A recommended sound
insulation modification package will be developed Ii,r
each home within the Ldn 65 to 75 noise contours, with
nNKlifications ranging from an additional 0-15 decibels
of intloor/outo-imr noise reduction at a cost from $0-
$25,000 leer home.
The program goal is to reduce the average internal
noise level to 45 decibels or less in habitable rooms
directly exlxrsed to aircraft noise. This level has been
established by federal guidelines.
What Modifications Aire included?
The nxxlifications in the sound insulation program arc
primarily intprovcntents u, wimlows and dr,ors and the
elimination ofair leaks into the home. Walls and
ceilings in very high noise ,leas rna�- he wiufi,rced with
additioml gypsum board. Air conditioning will he
imchralcd if tic holm, clues nut have if. Changcs to rhe
home will he handled iu a uniform manner consistent
with the home's aesthetics.
I )urimg const runt ion of t he sound insular ion
modifications to each residence, the program will pay,
and provide,mh li,r the following linishim}; work:
• Walls and ceilings of treated rooms would he
repainted either "off-white" or with at paint provideel by
t he homeowner.
• Surlaces modified or altered by the sound
insulation construction would he restored with a finish
surface of similar materials comparable to the surface
prior to construction. Fur example, existing
"sculptureel" surfaces would be rcl,Iastcred.
• All moldings would he rcplaccd.
• Any exterior stucco and window trim would be
replaced and repainted if necessary.
There will be .t $25,000 cap on sound insulation
modification work to be done on it single residencc. The
homeowner will have the aibility to reject reconunemded
sound insulation nx,chfication plans, as lung as the final
insulation modifiratiun plan selemd A/.t mi /roc ib,ru 5
dreibr/.r of"noise reduction in any room directly exposed
to aircraft noise.
I lotneowners will have some limited ability to
scic(t alternative nu,clifl(atirats to some di-ments, such
as windows or walls, as long its adequate noise redaction
is a(hieveel and costs do not increase.
In the event homeowners want to upgrade to a
higher level ofsound insulation or make other
miscellaneous improvenu-nts, additional work (act he
dune at the homeowner's expense as long as the
proposed changes are consistent with the scope and
character of the work being perfi,rmcd,
Now the Program WoPks
MA(:'s SOUnd Insulation Consultant'teatn will
administer the sound insulation program
simultaneously aunong the five eligible cities. This
team will handle program management, engineering,
quality control and supervision of the re•nuxleling
contractors throughout this multi-year program.
Program participants would sign an Avigational
Release as a condition of participating in the
program. The release waives legal claims against
MAC regarding aircraft noise and vibration but is
urn a lien or easement un the property. Eligible
homeowners who grant an avigation release to MAC:
would not he required to contribute toward the cost
of the program, according to FAA guidelines. "Phase
not granting such a release would he required to
contribute 20 percent of the cast of mcKlifications to
their home.
Ac(ording to FAA guidelines, eligible
homeowners who wish to remodel their homes prior
to the availability of the program in their area will mot
be reimbursed Irr construction casts, but would he
provided construction guidelines, including somnd
insulation technigttesand a list of approved material
suppliers. Ineligible homeowners living outside the
Ldn 65 noise contour who also wish to make sound
insulation modifications at their awn expense will
also be provided construction information upon
request.
171
! Jfo
)� ,.t 1-1
' .: P 11 i� f t
I O -Z
v.
A
j lose:
�OMNI"
I
C _ Ri1Yi��
:..—. �,.. .. _ -_.. �,.:. ...� ..,nye. „.
t .i. .,.
$ ..� .. ��yy,, -,u
' ^ Y— ...� �. ,�" .�. 4'L tee: ._ TR<*Y�s
(copied from Noise Footprint Map in Noise House on 815-92 by S.
Klassen)
Eligible Area
* Virtually all homes within the outer ring will have their entire
home (not just three rooms) sound insulated.
* Air conditioning will be provided if you do not have it.
* All work will be paid for. (8006 Fed, 20% MAC)
* Work will begin next summer (1992) with homes closest to
runway.
* It will take several years to get to homes near the outer ring.
* Eligible owners will be notified by mail.