All of the piece of the MAC's actions are coming together. Piece One: The MAC goes back on years of "implied" promises to finish noise abatement out to the 60 DNL contour. This implied promise was a major part of the debate on MSP expansion versus the other alternatives. For an example of the way this was portrayed to regulators and the public, see the Final Record of Decision by the FAA for the construction of the new runways. (http://www.faa.gov/arp/app600/5054a/RODMSP.html#VIIC)
"The MAC has an ongoing residential sound insulation program. Over $90 million has been committed to sound proof 4,200 homes. The FAA has awarded $35.6 million in grants during the course of this program to fund sound insulation measures related to the existing airport�s operations. The MAC intends to continue this effort in relation to the new runway. Additional mitigation is planned, as described in the noise mitigation plan, since the 2005 DNL 60-65 contour does not currently reach all of the properties projected to experience significant noise impacts. MAC further intends to expand this effort to the DNL 60 contour as long as it maintains a bond rating of at least an "A."" Of course, the MAC now claims that it cannot afford to implement this commitment fully. This leads us to piece two: The planned airport expansion is funded through the same source as noise mitigation. Therefore, to finance the Northwest preferred airport expansion, noise mitigation has to go. First, the cost of the NWA preferred airport expansion is increasing and the MAC share is becoming increasingly front-loaded, from today's Star Tribune: The revised plan envisions 12 new gates being built by June 2007. The original 15-year plan called for six new gates to be built within that same time period. . . [T]he revised cost estimate for the project goes from $862 million to $984 million. The revisions also make the MAC's financial commitment much more front-loaded. Rather than $135 million in expenditures for the first phase, to be completed in June 2007, the new plan calls for spending $372 million in the same period." The article continues, describing the funding sources for this ever growing project. Guess what, it's not coming from the primary beneficiary of the plan to kick all competing airlines over to the HHH terminal. It is coming from passenger facility charges (PFCs). Again, the Strib: According to a MAC staff memo to the commissioners, passenger facility charges that are included in the cost of airline tickets will pay for more than half of Phase One, the bulk of which centers on improvements to the Humphrey facility. The new plan proposes using the fees -- $4.50 per ticket -- both to pay for ongoing projects and pay debt service on bonds that would be issued by the MAC. The MAC is not proposing to raise the fees, Hogan said. The fees would, however, have to be used for longer period of time to fund the expansion costs instead of being put to other uses. Northwest Airlines, which accounts for 80 percent of the passenger traffic at the airport, would pay little for the first phase, Hogan said, adding that he couldn't say for certain what the amount might be. Northwest isn't expected to be a significant direct financial contributor to the expansion as a whole, in large part because of its financial difficulties." Perhaps you ask, what are the "other uses" to which the PFC could be put to? Gosh, what a surprise, it's noise mitigation! 1,161,478,610 dollars are projected to be collected through the imposition and collection of a $4.50 PFC until the year 2017. (see "PFC Approved Locations, Collections, and Expiration Dates" a PDF file available at http://www.faa.gov/arp/financial/pfc/pfclist.cfm?ARPnav=pfc) This is a truly stunning number, and it is purty close to the revised figure on the 15 year cost for expansion. When you add in the costs of issuing bonds to finance the 962 million dollar expansion project, you are coming quite close to eating the whole enchilada of the 1.16 billion the PFC is anticipated to produce. The purposes for which the PFC was authorized included both airport expansion and noise mitigation. To ensure that NWA's preferred option of HHH expansion and NW partner exclusivity the elimination or curtailment of the MAC's financial responsibility for mitigation was crucial. And you can now note how the expansion plan and the curtailment of noise mitigation are inextricably tied. So, we get NWA dictating the airport expansion that it prefers, by contravening the promises that got it the alternative it desired in 1998, and now we can see the direct financial result of that abrogation: the ability to capture the PFC revenue and divert it into fasttracking it's ghettoization plan for continued market dominance. Maybe this is old news for some, but I'm just starting to figure out how each piece of the puzzle is connected. And I am truly astounded at the amount of money we are talking about here in regards to the PFC. aaron klemz cooper +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Aaron Klemz, Minneapolis, Minnesota [EMAIL PROTECTED] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
