11-03-97 agendaJ
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1997
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
•
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. 7:00-7:30 P.M. ANNUAL MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION
II. 7:30-7:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY UPDATE
III. 7:45-8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ITEMS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 39
IV. 8:15-8:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF UPDATE ON CONDITION OF CITY
STREETS AND ALTERNATIVE MAINTENANCE
APPROACHES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 40
8:45 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON
REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
I•
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 40
Agenda November 3, 1997
Issue Statement:
Update the City Council on the condition of the City streets and discuss alternative
maintenance approaches.
Background:
The sudden dramatic failure of the paved surface of 65th Street between Penn Avenue
and Xerxes Avenue surprised City staff this spring. Other streets in the City are
showing early signs of the same kind of failure. City staff will be at the Study Session to
discuss:
• Results of the recent Pavement Management Survey.
• Results of tests conducted on 65th Street to try to explain the new "failure mode" on
65th Street and its possible causes.
• Effectiveness of the pavement maintenance strategy now being used.
• Alternative pavement maintenance strategies.
• Funding implementation of the various alternatives.
SEALCOAT PROGRAM
• In 1994 the City began to implement a plan to extend the service life of Richfield's
blacktop streets. At that time the streets were over 20 years old and were exhibiting the
type of distress associated with streets of that age. Cracks, and seams around street
cut patches, were opening up allowing storm water to penetrate the surface and soften
the soil under the surface. Street surfaces were showing wear from traffic. Council
approved a program of intensified street maintenance including sealcoating which has
helped to prolong street life (see the attached street repair graphic). This accelerated
maintenance program had caused the overall condition of Richfield's streets to actually
improve slightly.
DIFFERENT FAILURE MODE
Over the last three to four years staff has noted a different mode of pavement distress;
that is, stripping. Stripping is the loss of bonding between individual gravel particles
within pavement.
Most of the pot holes caused by stripping have been patched using standard pothole
patching techniques. This technique has proved very successful and economically
advantageous, especially on streets where there is not a lot of stripping. Traditional
pothole patching will continue to be used to repair stripping until the amount of stripping
on a certain street becomes so large that milling and overlaying becomes more cost
effective than patching. At that point milling away the surface of the street and repaving
the top two to three inches of pavement will have to be considered.
Last year 65th Street between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue stripped to a point
that pot hole patching was no longer economically feasible and created an emergency
. situation. The severe amount of the distress appeared nearly overnight and was a
complete surprise to staff. A contract was awarded and 65th Street was milled and
overlaid.
RECENT TESTS BY BRAUN
The City retained the consulting firm, Braun Intertec, to investigate the stripping
problem. Erland Lukanen from Braun Intertec will be available at the Study Session to
discuss the results. Based the results of that investigation, the City now knows that
Richfield is not the only city to be suffering this type of pavement distress and that the
cause of the stripping is not known for certain. Possible causes include:
• Use of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) highway paving
specifications instead of a specification tailored to low volume city streets.
• The quality of asphalt oil during the oil embargo of the mid-70's.
• Insufficient compaction of the top layer of asphalt.
The City also knows that the problem is limited to the top layer or wear course of the
pavement system. Since the streets which have severely stripped and streets which
show little or no stripping give similar test results when sampled and tested it is not
possible to determine with any degree of certainty which streets will fail or when.
ALTERNATIVE MAINTENANCE APPROACHES
The uncertainty does not allow for planning nor budgeting. However, the total cost of
resurfacing all residential streets is $16 million or about $12,000 per 660' City block. As
with 65th Street, it probably will not be known that a street will need an overlay until the
street actually fails. The City has several options available to plan for the eventual
resurfacing of Richfield's blacktop streets including:
• Break the City up into districts or neighborhoods and resurface the streets within
each district, one district at a time.
• Resurface street segments on a "worst first" basis as the need arises.
• Resurface streets only when the adjacent property owners petition for the
improvement.
FUNDING ALTERNATIVES
In addition to alternative scheduling of the work there are also optional ways of funding
resurfacing projects including:
• Specially assess the cost of resurfacing. This cost is estimated at $10.00 per
assessable foot.
• MSA (Municipal State Aid) funding. Projects such as this are MSA eligible for
designated state aid routes. However there is great demand for state aid funds on
redevelopment projects. Spending state aid funds on resurfacing would take away
some of the City's ability to react to other needs.
• Enact a small ad valorem tax increase, an estimated $10 - $50 per "average"
household per year, and dedicate those funds for street resurfacing. This option
would save MSA funds for other projects and would provide the flexibility needed to
react to street resurfacing on an "as needed" basis.
• Transportation utility funds. Fees could be collected to operate a transportation or
street utility similar to the water, sanitary, or drainage utilities. State law does not
now allow the formation of location transportation utilities.
Recommended Motion:
No action is required now; however, staff would appreciate some general direction as to
how the Council would like to proceed. Direction at this time will allow staff to formulate
a specific plan to select the streets and to fund the needed construction.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Richfield's blacktop streets are suffering from premature stripping due to unknown
causes. It is only a matter of time before more City streets reach a point where
major maintenance is more cost effective than continued pot hole patching.
2. Flexibility in reacting promptly to these projected failures is important because of
the unpredictable and rapid nature of the failures.
3. Since it is likely that stripping failures will be a maintenance problem for years to
come it is necessary to establish a funding mechanism that is fair and equitable
and which protects the City's ability to react to other needs for street construction
funds.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could direct staff to continue trying to patch stripping failures with traditional pot
hole repair techniques. This would, however, place an undue burden on the streets
maintenance division.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
No decision is necessary at this time. Members of the City staff and Braun Intertec staff
will be in attendance at the November 3, 1997 Study Session for purposes of
discussing the condition of City streets and alternative maintenance approaches.
Respe y submitted,
Jams . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
•
4
4
PROLONGING THE LIFE OF A CITY STREET
OR
PREVENTING A LITTLE CRACK FROM BECOMING A BIG CRACK
BEFORE AFTER
.CONDITION #1
o o. • ,o• :. ..';•;;o• •
°: •e;.,1SPHALTP .. a•'.r:
e
.•'.;'
VENfE?IT;,d ?', ;.
o °• .
o ?
,
?
??•
.? _ _ SUBG RADE
E?4CCJAT
ESTIMATED AGE: 0-10 YEARS - .
PROBLEMM1 tR CRACKS NO AINTENANCE: SEALCOAT
4'I RIORATION OF CRACK
EDGES
,
t
:o+? . a PHALT
;i
• o ear
a
b
f ,• J ro - .,
EiHIE IT,:o e • , •4 :- . •
v
•
«
e.,.
a
. Ap,
,s'• s• %i A r:?•,
ASPllAtrT,
CRpkCk
SEiQ tMG=`
,
,
.
ESTIMATED AGE: 5-15 YEARS - - - - _ - ''
PROBLEM: MODERATE CRACKS, MINOR MAINTENANCE: ROUT CRACK, PILL WITH LIQUID
C) WO&A OF CRACK EDGES TI SEALER AND EA T:
CONDITION #3`
ep o, .o r ' ?:.°+'e ?.' ,• . ASPHALT NT •'d' a ::'v
VEME
.
•I
• 1
•
•
.r. .. - ,•
, ..`,'
` -.,`+•, SUB DE •`. ( .'11,I.?LI?d1 ••, ,, '
?
'
ESTIMATED AGE: 10--201EAks - •
ROBLEM: SEVERE CRACKS WITH SIGNIFICANT. MAINTENANCE: MILL OUT A 14" WIDE BY 2"
DETERIORATION OF CRACK EDGES THICK STRIP OF PAVEMENT,
AND SUBGRADE PATCH AND SEALCOAT `
CONDITION •?IE4
•
o'
° ! ; • • e . , .:! t• o:'? IASPHALT' /f?VEMENT'i
? ?, s' • ;?
,
NWIL.
' F
r . • - - SUB BADE =
_ +
S - OVERLAY = ° r
E
TIMATED AGE: 15-40 YEARS
PROBLEM: SEVERE ALLIGATORING, SETTLEMENT MAINTENANCE: MILL OUT PROBLEM AREAS TO
SUBGRADE DETERIORATION AND FULL DEPTH, DRY, COMPACT
..MULTIPLE SEVERE CRACKS SUBGRADE, PATCH AND OVERLAY
CITY OF LICHFIELD
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
CRACK REPAIR TECHNIQUES FOR BITUMINOUS STREETS,
t.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
0 Study Session Letter No. 39
Agenda November 3, 1997
Issue Statement:
Status of airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following:
• Runway 4-22
On October 14 the City once again inquired about the status of construction projects.
In a letter to Jeff Hamiel, Jim Prosser explained the importance of preparing residents
for construction and other impacts that will affect them. Hamiel was reminded that the
MAC had verbally agreed in April to assist Richfield and Bloomington in the process of
informing residents about the reconstruction. Hamiel's response to this letter stated
that "...this process would start following the 1997 construction season, as MAC was
formulating its Capital Improvement Program for 1997. We are still on schedule to meet
this goal. MAC staff will contact your office in the near future regarding this matter."
[Letters are attached]
This vague response to a detailed request for a timeline of construction seemed
contradictory to the speech he gave to MASAC on October 28. At this meeting Hamiel
stated that MAC staff will become more personally involved with communities... more
visible, and talk to people about what is going on at the airport. We are going back to
filling people's basic need of information and "dealing better with things that affect
• people's lives." We ought to be listening very carefully and finding out what we can do
to become more of a service for you [communities].
A MASAC member then asked when MAC would be meeting with Richfield and
Bloomington to discuss a communication piece about increased traffic off 4-22 during
reconstruction. Hamiel stated that the MAC wouldn't be able to do this until March.
The following are tentative plans for reconstruction:
In March/April 1998 reconstruction will take place on the south parallel runway's
westerly end. During reconstruction, an additional 1,000 feet of runway on the west
end will also be constructed (due to future reconstruction of 4-22). At this time the
south parallel runway will be reduced from 10,000 ft. to 7,500 ft. but will still be
operational. Minneapolis has agreed to the extra 1,000 ft. if it isn't used
operationally after the reconstruction of 4-22.
=> In 1999, most likely the south end of the south parallel runway will take place.
In 2000, reconstruction and a new 1,000 ft. extension will take place on 4-22's
northerly end.
The taxiway complex on 4-22 is not scheduled until 2001 and is highly unlikely to be
constructed due to the operations of 17-35 inhibiting its use.
4-22 Litigation
Steve Pflaum has requested an extension of time to file Richfield's Opening Brief and
Appendix. The time delay is due to the excessive amount of pages (15,000) within the
FAA's administrative record on Runway 4-22. Review of these materials is needed to
identify additional documents that support Richfield's position. The Eighth Circuit has
given Richfield until November 21 to file the Opening Brief.
• Proposed Runway 17-35
• On October 16, Representative Garcia received a response from the Attorney General
about the legality of MAC's acquisition of Bloomington property. In the letter Kenneth
E. Raschke, Assistant Attorney General, states that according to "legal analysis of the
issue, prepared by MAC outside counsel,... land acquisition at this time is not
prohibited." Also included was, "The MAC has also indicated that, while acquisition of
property at the present time could result in substantial cost savings if the project does
go forward, land acquisition will not predetermine the course of development or limit
alternatives or mitigative measures."
Airport legal counsel Steve Pflaum expressed surprise that the Attorney General would
rely upon MAC's legal counsel for an opinion in this matter.
At the October 28 MASAC meeting Jeff Hamiel spoke about the procedures taking
place with regard to the proposed north-south runway:
=> The various construction projects between now and 2010 will cost between $1.5 and
$1.7 billion. Funds will be obtained through concession revenue, lease rate
increases, revenue bonds, increasing landing fees, and investments. No general
tax revenues will be sought.
Construction will begin on 17-35 next summer - with the EIS due out in January.
Runway 17-35 will increase the capacity of the airport by more than 25%. The MAC
has worked out an agreement with the City of Minneapolis that planes will not fly
north over Minneapolis unless they absolutely have to (winds).
=> With Runway 17-35 there will be an anticipated reduction of aircraft over Mendota
Heights.
Because residents on Richfield's east side will be affected by the north-south
runway, "MAC staff is currently working with Richfield's, Jim Prosser, to redevelop
along Cedar."
The MAC has offered $25 million to the Sports Facilities Commission for the Met
Center property. Acquisition of this land is essential so it can be swapped for the
Kelly Farm property owned by the Mall of America. If they can't buy the Met Center
property outright, they will take it in court.
=> The Metro Office Park was obtained so that the displaced hotels could relocate on
this site.
• Fidell Report
A revised Executive Summary and colored maps have been included with this Study
Session Letter. Don Brauer will be organize a task force committee meeting to discuss
the implications of the survey's results and mitigating efforts that will need to take place.
• Ball Field Replacement
A final draft plan for replacing Rich Acres ball fields will be prepared in November for
recommendation to the Master Park Plan sub-committee, Community Services
Commission and City Council. Since mid-September, comments have been taken from
the public on proposals to replace the ball fields.
The ball field task force has been reviewing the issue and studying various proposals
since fall 1996 as part of the ongoing Recreation Asset Relocation Study. One of the
proposals under consideration would include acquisition of the Woodlawn Trailer Court
located at 74th and Lyndale. Approximately one-third of the trailer court property would
be used for ball field replacement. The balance of the site would be combined with
other parcels for new housing, probably townhomes. While the number of new units
has not been specifically identified, it is likely that there will be more and higher value
units created than currently exist on the trailer court property. The Richfield Chamber of
Commerce Board of Directors opposes this plan and unanimously supports keeping
• Woodlawn Terrace as is. It is anticipated that on November 6 the ball field task force
will make a final determination on replacement. The recommendation then will be sent
to the Community Services Commission and finally to the City Council. The Richfield
Chamber's views will be shared with the Commission and Council.
Complaint Summary
Complaints and question calls to the City of Richfield are at an all time low this month.
This may in part be due to the Airport Q&A that was distributed throughout the last two
months. Complaint calls to the MAC decreased from August to September. August
complaints logged in at 125 calls and September's at 73.
Out of approximately 800 Airport Q&A drop pieces distributed, 47 comment cards have
been returned by residents. Of these 47: 7 residents strongly agree that the City
provides adequate information regarding airport issues; 33 agree; 7 disagree; and 1
strongly disagrees.
• New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
An October report has not been developed by W.D. Schock Company at this time.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport issues.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding airport concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of November 3, 1997.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
0
Magda
CITY OF 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Michael Sandahl
Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag
October 14, 1997
Mr. Jeff Hamiel
Executive Director
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040- 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Hamiel:
When projects take place at the airport that will impact Richfield residents, the City makes a
concerted effort to prepare residents for what will be taking place. At the beginning of this year
residents were told about reconstruction of the south parallel runway taking place due to
underlying subgrade problems warranting more then surface repair. Residents were told of the
safety concerns of parallel runways, and the additional flights that would be shifted to Runway 4-
22.
In April, residents were told of the decision to delay the reconstruction project by one year. They
were reminded that in April or May of 1998 Runway 4-22 would be used for a greater percentage
of flights. The MAC verbally agreed in April to assist Richfield and Bloomington in the process
of informing residents about the reconstruction, and Nigel Finney added that discussion on the
project would begin in late summer.
We are concerned about having time to develop a public information program in relation to this
matter. It is critical that residents receive a timeline of airport events that will have an impact on
their lives. Please assist us in keeping Richfield residents informed of the reconstruction process
by sending a description and timeframe of the project.
Richfield appreciates your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
0 JDP:dmw
The Urban Hometown
Telephone - ax ) 861-9749
An Equal Opportunity Employer
RECEIVED OCT 2 7 1991
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
ePPt Is Sq"V Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
Fzr t 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
. m o Phone (612) 726-8100 0 Fax (612) 726-5296
At t
o N
f Office of Executive Director
91v 41RP0 RS9 00
October 23, 1997
Mr. James D. Prosser
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Prosser:
In response to your letter of October 14, 1997, the MAC is prepared to move ahead with
a joint effort to keep communities informed regarding potential airport development over
the next few years. This holds particularly true for runway construction since it will have
the greatest effect on surrounding communities. Previous discussions have indicated that
this process would start following the 1997 construction season, as MAC was formulating
its Capital Improvement Program for 1997. We are still on schedule to meet this goal.
MAC staff will contact your office in the near future regarding this matter.
S' r y,
ffr . Ha ie
xecutive Director
cc: Nigel Finney
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer.
Reliever Airports: AIRT.AKF. . ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT No. 8211
SUMMARY
A social survey of community response to runway sideline noise (including low frequency aircraft
noise' potentially capable of causing vibration and rattling sounds inside dwellings) was undertaken in a
neighborhood in a geographic position relative to an operating runway at Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX), similar to Richfield's position with respect to a proposed Runway 17/35 at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport (MSP). A structured interview elicited information about annoyance due to aircraft
noise in general, notice of vibration or rattling sounds due to aircraft, annoyance due to such sounds, and
actions taken by respondents to lessen rattling in their homes.
A total of 644 respondents residing between 1,000 and 5,000 feet to the side (south) of Runway 25R
at Los Angeles International Airport completed a brief telephone interview about neighborhood living
conditions in general and aircraft noise in particular. Three sets of simultaneous acoustic measurements
were made at subsets of seven points in the interviewing area to quantify typical outdoor low frequency noise
levels created by individual aircraft operations. Figure 1 shows the estimated low frequency aircraft noise
levels in contour intervals constructed from these measurements. Outdoor low frequency aircraft noise
levels in the interviewing area varied over a 20 dB range, from about 70 dB to about 90 dB.
Figure 2 compares the cumulative percentages of respondents who noticed aircraft-induced vibration
or rattle in their homes, who were annoyed in any degree with such noise, and who were highly annoyed with
such noise, all with respect to outdoor low frequency noise levels at their residences.
The survey data permit extension of FICON's rationale for defining land use compatibility to identify
a threshold of significant impact of low frequency aircraft noise in Richfield. The expected prevalence in
Richfield: of high annoyance with low frequency noise at a level of about 80 dB would not differ
significantly from the prevalence rate associated with FICON's criterion for compatibility of long-term
aircraft noise exposure at an (A-weighted) level of Ld, = 65 dB. (Plausible cases could also be made for
somewhat lower and higher definitions of thresholds of significant low frequency noise impact, as described
in Section 5.7 of this report.)
Figure 3 illustrates the consequences of adopting two thresholds of significant low frequency noise
impact consistent with FICON's rationale. The two upper panels of Figure 3 show expected DNL and low
frequency noise contours in the area of eastern Richfield adjacent to proposed Runway 17/35. The DNL
contours in the upper left panel show noise exposure due to all airport operations as estimated by Version
5.1 of FAA's INM computer program. The low frequency noise contours in the upper right panel are
derived from runway sideline noise measurements made at LAX, adjusted and transposed to MSP. The
lower left and right panels in Figure 3 show areas with cumulative A-weighted values of Ldn less than 65
dB in which low frequency sideine noise is expected to exceed 80 and 85 dB, respectively, due to operations
on proposed Runway 17/35.
I Please see the Glossary for definitions of "low frequency aircraft noise" (or simply "low frequency noise") and
other acoustic terms as used in this report.
ix
?.J.....uAf? .c?............,w.....,........uwe.........,r.:.hvr+.....?::i`?.a.::.41iyi4
19
? 40
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT No. 8211
Figure 1
7-7
10
N
E
0.8 0 0.8 1.6 Miles S
Estimated low frequency aircraft noise levels in 5 dB contour intervals, constructed from runway
sideline measurements made in the interviewing area.
U) 60
15- 1
Percen ftes based on all completed Inteivlews (n = 644)
c50
0
CL
0
m
cc 40
dc0
`0
U N 30.
0c
0-20--
(D 7a P" dWtO`
= 10 00
E Y°0p°
H?Oh
U
0
83 64 85 BB 67 88 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 78 77 78 79 80 81 Q 88 84 W 88 87 88 89 90 91 92
Outdoor Low Frequency Noise Level, (dB)
is
Figure 2 Cumulative percentages of respondents noticing, annoyed by, and highly annoyed by aircraft-
induced vibration or rattle, with respect to outdoor low frequency noise level.
x?
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT No. 8211
Figure 3 Comparison of areas in Richfield within DNL and low frequency noise contours.
Upper panels show noise contours. Lower panels shade areas with 1) low frequency
sideline noise expected to exceed 80 and 85 dB due to operations on proposed
Runway 17/35, and 2) A-weighted cumulative noise exposure in excess of tm, = 65
dB due to all airport operations.
X1
win ricyuruvy 70 80 90
Area between the DNL 65 dB contour
and the low frequency 80 dB contour
Area between the DNL 65 dB contour
and the low frequency 85 dB contour
•
Cl)
J
J
Q
U
F -
z
g
CL
ti
I.J.
W
m
0
O
•
=3 a
0 ca -a t . 0) °Q -0
cu
C 2 c ca E2 4-
O E t6
co N p
C.) C
O Co >,
L
a)
ca Co
C
C
G
L c c
'o p O O p..-.
-
U) CL p fn
c
N 6
> O "p •? U
C .
O ca
V
C U ca
0 .C C
(6
-?
CD "O
0 .?
C L N -O c'
p C a-06 p ?O Q. > -a O C Q 0
Co O -0 co 0 0 0 .,._ p U
.F.
C N C m c M O C)
N
N
C
N
U
E 0 0 •O• L U C .C co w N N a)
N E W -0 0 2 a W c
w C i U
U Q L) N > Q Q U - Q
(?• >+ pca CO) i M
O
N Q
C N
O N O y cC
c6 O 0 U
N N L m N O
OL
O
(0 ca o -0 0 a- cy)
-_ ++ O
C
C 0 L
CL
D
i>
0 w
>
2
O
c0
0
LO
-p
O 0 C
cn .2 +
-'
co U
-r-
E C:
cu
o
u?
c
o
p
ca o
3 m ?
3 o c
- a? T-
iri -0
U-) >, U
_ >
cn
ca 0 0 0
U c
c p
E
>, U
0 0
_ i>
0 (D
?.
Q
L
"
o
O
M C O 0 N to
Q p p
N ca
to
O ,-
N N
0 )
N
p U
E v
O 0 0
O
r N
Co w p L_ C
)
OC p 0)
CL
(4 0 C
0
Q
cd
O
0 C
O L
v- C
M O .
N p
O 7
co O
N O
N
> N _ p CO i-0 c3 C
C .
p 'T O
?r• CL O U 0
3
. 0 `
LT O
r Q
Q.
a. to Q N fn ?, U
m '
0 U
Q) 0 -0
a) to 0 0
CO)
0 p O C 0 "C O 3
0
L E 0
0_ _
0
co E
p
a>
C?
0
Q (D
C
O
V
C Q Q
Q c r ? ?
V
C 0
o
C
-0
?-
r i?e
co
cc
m A
W
N
d
d r
O N
_ 0)
O r
N O
O
z
co 0
CD
(0
1--
O
co co co I`
w
o O O O O O O
V- N M V LO co
r
N
O1
ca
CL
•
VJ
J
J
U
Z
g
0
S0
ti
O)
w
m
0
O
L
4) 0
?
•Q
`° E
O 0 !L-
C
a0
O
III
co co c o N O F
C
c
Mh
O
c
O
U c
p
O
y, Q
0 .0 U f6 N ("-4 N LO C N C C O
0) 0
-0
0 a)
m vi
?
po
'C U) -0
0
a)
vi
C: Z.
0
CL C-
a) 0
0-0
N -0
c
a)
U)
a)
E
2
a)_
a)
O
0
C 7
O CL
a)
I-75
-
"O
O
ate)
'O
a)
"?
'
O
E
a)
a)
U
cc `) U
0 _
41
0 -a to lA
-0
E
3:
a) a
O
V
! _
c
•-
p 'O L LO O M (x c X L 0 N
?r
N (EII
0 L
N
f04
'?
a) O
`-
C
a) .
7
m a) a)
-
0
.-
4' ca
a)
U
L
.O
-p
.c C O
'.
U
ca
4O
C
CD
5
C. O a
X L c c a) w a) )
c W a) a) O a a)
p C a) N Q.
x p >
w n v, U U Q U 3 3 H a) c w U
°)
u) °)
)
o v
(D
a) c o
0
a) ; w
_0
p >
?.
(?. C > Q
x
-0 w -p :3 a) a)
ca
L a) a) L
0
(j)
C
•M+
ya) ? .?
fa
:3 75 c c
a
a)
Co CO)
?
'a
i
-a
- d O
0-0
3 a '°
a c
i i rn
ca 0 0
a) Co Co a)
-0 a)
a)
-0 a)
a)
(D
co)
.0
E
E c#)
E
o
I6 O O E p +?
-0 a) N
m t t 2)
ct- c
U
E (0 a) a) O
a) N O
U)
C C a) L O c .c a)
Q N C
O c
a .E \V
ai
a) Q
O
Q C C
-c ca U >
o
m U)
M O
?O M
ti
co W co
V) r- N co
•--
U U U U
O O O O
I? co O O
r
N
a)
(0
a
September, 1997
MASAC
Abbreviated
Technical Advisor's Report
f Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport
MONTHLY MEETING -. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
•
1?
chairman:
Robert P. Johnson
Vice Chairnan:
Thomas Hoeg
Technical Advisor:
Roy Fuhrmann
Acting Secretary.-
Melissa Srnvronski
Airborne Erpress:
Brian Bates
Air Transport Association:
Paul McGraw
ALPA:
Charles W. Curry Jr.
City of Bloomington:
Petrona Lee
Vern Wilcox
City of Burnsville:
Ed Porter
city of Eagan:
1bm Egan
City of Inver Grove Heights:
Dale Hammon
City of Mendota Heights:
Jill Smith
City of Minneapolis:
James B. Serrin
John Richter
Joe Lee
Judith Dodge
City of Richfield:
Kristal Stokes
Dawn Weitzel
City- of St. Lamis Park:
Robert Adrews
City of St. Paul:
C. Scott Basin
Thomas H. Hueg
Carol Ann McGuire
Delta Air Lines Inc.:
Rich Kidwell
Federal E.rpress:
Dan DeBord
Federal Aviation Administration:
Bruce Wagoner
Ronald Glaub
MA C Staff.
Dick Ketnz
MBAR:
Robert P. Johnson
Mesaba Northwest Airlink:
Daniel Sheehan
Metropolitan Airports Commission:
Commissioner Alton Gasper
MN Air National Guan
Major Roy J. Shetka
Northwest Airlines
Mark Saimen
Jennifer Sayre
St. Paul Chamber of Commerce:
Craig Wruck
Sun Coumrv Airlines.
Dale Kariya
United Airlines Inc:
Bill Yantiss
United Parcel Service:
Mike Geyer
U.S. Air Force Reserve:
Captain David J. Gerken
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Declaration of Purposes
1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience,
and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state,
and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical
handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international
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
aviation 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 air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement,
control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and
3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the
public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Statement of Purpose
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities
adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a
public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of
the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and
evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of
the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective
procedures, 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 airport respecting the
problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions
initiated and taken to alleviate the problem.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Representation
The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and
responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users,
have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User
Representatives 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 Airport activity, but provide a public sounding
board and airport information outlet. The hotline
is staffed during business hours, Monday - Friday.
This report is prepared and printed in house by
Chad Leqve, ANOMS Specialist
Questions or comments may be directed to:
MAC - Aviation Noise Programs
Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Tel: (612) 725-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310
ANP Home Page: http://www.macavsat.org
Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Programs r
O-A
110
?O
?-s
¦
0
C?D
B
J
N
A?
?s
NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS
N N W
p O O O O O O O
o?
a
....................................................................
oL
....................................
X06
9
Hill H?HIHHHI-
.....................................................................................................
s?
...:...........................................................................................................
..............................................................................................
'y
...............................................................................................................
?O -
4
CA
b
0
n
0
m
?s
?c
£ a$ed
swE.goad asioN uoIIT!IA !
%9
%9
to
°!o £L
A7,
I/ np.
ao u Z r
0 00
ZZ
°/O z
°?S to Li
%?
sanog atuill IN
%9S
°l009 ?
c
I/ n>?
O/o 17C
s inOH IIV
L661 iagwaldaS - sjaodaH 2o- aanioZ
asn XuMunH ioj atui1, aiqujiuAV
uoiss?wwoD sliodlid um!lodoJxaW
°!0 6
fo
o? ° Z r
v o0
ZZ
0
•
•
sws.120.rd asioN uoilUlAV
•
08Zi I1910Z 08ZI Iu;oZ
S auan a.z3 89 69:£Z - 00:£Z
£ do-unN oud?ug V91 69:ZZ - OO:ZZ
81 asioN puno o 89Z 69:1Z - OO:OZ
0 ioldooilgH 9tZ 69:61 - 00:91
S aautgznlsiQ iuinjanalS 991 69:91 - 00:Zi
Li 2u. 1-4 nnog 08Z 69:11 - 00:L0
901 oxg-i/xireg Zt, 69:90 - 0090
9Zi 1 asioN anissaaxg 9L 69:90 - 0000
imol hum duxoa 3o aan;uH Rol
aunt'
;umldwoj jo aanjuN SU(I3o awis,
•
6SZI 888 IL£ imol
ff AA
Z inud 'IS M)Ak
0 61 61 0 a?lug gsgunS
%Z 6 911 £Z £6 Inud
0/08'Z S£ 8 LZ jiud smo-I ';S
°/nS'0 9 9 0 inud ';S glnoS
0/0 0 I poomologS
0/0 I 0 aiitnasO-d
°/0Z'0 Z Z _ 0 junowasog
0/08'9 £L OL £ I)PUP?2I
0/0140 1 1 0 g;nocu id
0/09'0 9 1 S nxuoaauuTW
0/08'8£ 68tb 60£ 081 silo eauulw
%S'£ I I L I 691 Z I slg laH UlopuaW
0/09' 11 Lt, 1 6C I 8 s;g PH anoaD .lanul
%I'0 1 0 i su!N off
%Z'0 Z Z 0 sIg PH uoalud
0/0 i I 0 o?Ilg
°/n L' I ZZ OZ Z uuipg
0/09'0 8 L I aureld uapg
%Z'6 911 Z8 V£ uu ng
%0'i £i £i 0 aii?^suing
0/09,1 OZ 81 Z uol uiwoolg
%S'0 9 S I ailnA al d
a2uluamad lgoZ a in;audaQ IuAU.IV
Z aSed
Xjij Aq Siuwwns juiuldwoj
L661 aagwajdaS
9aumuunS juiridmoa jaod qv InuoijuuaaluI Ind 'IS - siiodgauuiW
uo?ss?wwoD suodi?d ueuiodoiloW
I Pgud
SIUUJBOid aSioN uo?IrinV
i8£I Lb£i 'IVJLOI
£ I 8 ,c.rei?t?y?
89, 191 V'J
I t1£ Ztl£ jalnwwoD
698 9t,8 JOUMD nV
L6611 96611
paoaag aUjna1, podaiv VV3 - kinwwnS suoyuaado XIzn(j a2naaAV aagwajdaS
Lo£i 98oz wilol
9 9 •aslw
9 0 lnnd 'is
£ 0 ougg OV I
6 £I pnoi:) BuiAL.1
0 0 IMSXJD
$ 9 exouV
0 Z a3m1jIV
08Zi 1902 dsw
L66I 9661 ;soda
kanwwnS juwjdwoj aagwajdaS podaiV
V/N %Z'i 9 %1'09 %Z'Z9 £ a8E1s
V/N 0/08'8t, %6'6£ %8'Lt, Z aims
L661;unOD 9661 ;unoa L661 9661 a? S
Sb omv SWONV painpauaS palnpagaS
a2quaaaad x. Taal pagwaldaS dSW
V/N V/N V/N V/N 0£
V/N VIN V/N V/N ZI
V/N V/N V/N V/N ZZ
V/N V/N V/N V/N tl0
aSn O/0 aanpuda(l as fl 0/n InALLIV XtmunH
I3naaaid IId - bututunS suoquaado
L66I, -iagtualdaS
SaummnS juiuidmoa puu suoijuaadp
uoissiwwoD sijodjzV url?jodogaW
0
r 1
L_J
9
0
•
Area estimated to be exposed to low frequency
noise of at least 75 dB but less than DNL 60
Area estimated to be exposed to at least DNL 60 but
with low frequency noise levels less than 75 dB
Area estimated to be exposed to at least DNL 60 and
with low frequency noise levels at least 75 dB
N N
? 'fl ? 4 C Q
•
•
N ?
Area estimated to be exposed to at least DNL 65 but
with low frequency noise levels less than 80 dB
• Area estimated to be exposed to at least DNL 65 and
with low frequency noise levels at least 80 dB
noise or at least uu ats out less than UNL (75
•
•
Area estimated to be exposed to low frequency
noise of at least 75 d6 but less than DNL 65
Area estimated to be exposed to at least DNL 65 but
with low frequency noise levels less than 75 dB
Area estimated to be exposed to at least DNL 65 and
with low freauencv noise levels at least 75 dB
0
?? o c Q
1, ,1
u
•
- Area estimated to be exposed to low frequency
noise of at least 80 dB but less than DNL 60
Area estimated to be exposed to at least DNL 60 but
with low frequency noise levels less than 80 dB
osed to at least DNL 60 and
A
a estimat
d t
b
re
e
o
e exp
with low frequencv noise levels at least 80 dB
N ?
11
0
Area estimated to be exposed to low frequency
noise of at least 85 dB but less than DNL 60
Area estimated to be exposed to at least DNL 60 but
with low frequency noise levels less than 85 dB
Area estimated to be exposed to at least DNL 60 and
with low frequency noise levels at least 85 dB
N
'0' 0 c Q
MM._ E R .. ° `m.
0
0
N N
? ? n O c Q
Area estimated to be exposed to at least DNL 65 but
with low frequency noise levels less than 85 dB
Area estimated to be exposed to at least DNL 65 and
with low frequency,noise levels at least 85 dB
- Area estimated to be exposed to low frequency
noise of at least 85 dB but less than DNL 65