Loading...
07/13/2021 - Airport Relations CommissionAIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP TUESDAY JULY 13, 2021 7:30 P.M. EAGAN CITY HALL—EAGAN ROOM (2ND FLOOR) AGENDA I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. FUTURE ARC GOALS AND MISSION IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT MEMO To: Airport Relations Commission From: Dianne Miller, Assistant City Administrator Date: July 7, 2021 Subject: Public Policy Conversation: The Future of the Airport Relations Commission The City Council is seeking feedback from the Airport Relations Commission (ARC) on the future of the commission. Specifically, the topic will be addressed at a meeting between the ARC and City Council on Tuesday, September 14 as part of the City Council’s workshop. The following insights explain the history of the commission, the challenges the commission is facing, and possible policy decisions where the commission could opine to assist the Council with decision-making about the future of the ARC. History/Overview The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) was established in 1988. The Commission derives its authority from Section 2.50 of the City Code. The purpose and mission of the ARC is as follows: ARC Purpose: To advise and make recommendations to the City Council on issues of aircraft noise and airport policies that impact or have the potential to impact the community. ARC Mission: The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) recognizes the burden of aircraft noise is balanced by the economic benefits of being a neighbor to MSP Airport. The ARC, under the direction of the City Council, will work in partnership with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the residents of Eagan to make recommendations on reducing the burden of aircraft noise in Eagan without jeopardizing safety. The ARC historically had seven (7) members, which were appointed by the City Council to serve staggered two-year terms. One (1) alternate was also appointed for a period of one year. The ARC meets 6 times per year. In 2021, the Council chose to appoint only incumbents, resulting in a total of five commissioners. The future of the ARC is being raised in light of feedback from commissioners, the public, staff, and the City Council. I spoke to each current member of the commission this past Memo: Future of ARC July 7, 2021 Page 2 spring to gain your thoughts. The following are observations that were shared with me during those conversations: 1. The City’s role in impacting airport policy and/or changing FAA operations is very limited. 2. The MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), an advisory board to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), has grown in sophistication since its inception in 2002. The NOC consists of representatives from communities that border MSP Airport, along with an equal number of members from the airport user community (i.e., Delta Airlines, UPS, Sun Country, etc.). In addition to bi-monthly meetings that are open to the public, the NOC also hosts quarterly public input meetings in the evening for residents to attend and share concerns or ask questions of the MAC staff. Eagan residents have typically attended both forums. For many years, the NOC has been the primary group driving policy change with regard to aircraft noise. Given that most noise policy matters are considered at the NOC, the City’s Airport Relations Commission agendas typically include the items that were previously before the NOC, resulting in a duplication of efforts. Additionally, there are only a handful of residents who typically attend or contact the City with noise complaints on a regular basis. 3. Residents are growing in frustration with the limited authority of the ARC and the City to influence change at MSP Airport, particularly as it relates to runway use. Moreover, the FAA is within their rights in how they are managing the airport, thus, challenging the FAA on runway use is not resulting in noticeable changes for the public. 4. Current ARC meetings typically include an update from the MAC Community Affairs Manager or a speaker from an airport industry representative as an educational briefing for the commission. There are very few action items that come before the ARC, with the ultimate action being taken by the City Council. 5. There are many duplicative layers of approval when action items are presented to the NOC or MAC. For example, a single letter can start at the ARC for approval, then go to the City Council, followed by NOC consideration, MAC Committee approval, and lastly, approval by the MAC Commission of the whole. This process results in five separate groups/committees considering one piece of communication. 6. The noise contours around MSP Airport continue to decrease in size, meaning the noise impact on communities is lessening. Some residents would note, however, that Memo: Future of ARC July 7, 2021 Page 3 the frequency of aircraft, particularly in the warm summer months, continues to negatively impact their quality of life. 7. The airlines continue to make strides in updating their fleets with planes that produce less noise. For example, the DC-9 and MD-80 aircrafts that were frequently used at MSP over many decades are no longer being used and have been replaced by quieter planes. The reduction in noise contours in 2020 was dramatic given the impact of the pandemic on the aviation industry. That said, the trend of shrinking noise contours has been prevalent for several years prior to the pandemic. Research and Findings The City of Eagan and Mendota Heights are the only two cities in the metropolitan area with an advisory airport commission whose mission is to advise on matters related specifically to MSP Airport. With the exception of Mendota Heights, airport noise and policy issues are managed at the staff level, with input and policy matters being taken to the City Council as needed. The cities who serve on the NOC have a mixture of elected and staff representation. When the NOC first began, it was more common to have elected representatives attending NOC meetings. In recent years, it is almost a 50/50 split in terms of elected and staff representation. Airport noise and policy matters often use a language of its own and thus the learning curve is high for newly elected officials who have not previously been involved in airport operations or policy matters. Discussion/Public Policy Questions The City Council briefly discussed the future of the ARC at a retreat this past spring. The Council asked to get feedback and suggestions from the commission prior to any decisions being made. The ARC is scheduled to meet with the Council at the September 14 Council workshop. As part of that meeting, the Council will seek feedback from the Commission regarding the future of the ARC. The following policy questions (along with pros and cons voiced to date) are included below to assist the Commission as you formulate your feedback. 1. Should the ARC continue in its current form? Pros: • The ARC provides a forum for the public to raise issues or ask questions about airport noise and airport policy. • The ARC is a mechanism to communicate airport noise and policy matters to the community. Memo: Future of ARC July 7, 2021 Page 4 Cons: • Significant City staff time is being dedicated to a commission that often has few (or no) members of the public attending. With the limited data we have for online/cable viewership, it would appear meetings average up to 30 viewers per meeting, and frequently, several of those viewing are staff members from the City, MAC, and FAA. • The Commission adds another layer in an industry with numerous advisory or policy- making bodies where the community is being represented (City Council, NOC, MAC committees, and MAC commission of the whole). • The City has been fortunate to find residents who have an understanding or strong interest in aircraft noise and policy matters. However, for residents without that expertise, the learning curve is steep and new commissioners spend years learning the technical language of the airport as they seek to provide input as a commissioner. 2. Should airport relations be managed at the staff level, with concerns or policy matters being brough directly to the City Council? Pros: • Efficiency (both with Administration and Eagan Television). • Residents could continue to contact City staff with aircraft noise questions and concerns. Staff directly communicates with MAC staff as needed to get appropriate responses to residents. • Staff expertise will continue to be utilized on the NOC and in communication with the public. Letters from the City to the MAC and FAA could continue to be prepared by staff, but taken directly to the Council for consideration, thus removing any delays to accommodate the commission’s meeting schedule. Cons: • Limited depth in airport knowledge beyond Administration (not a lot of “bench strength” amongst staff on this topic). • Current commissioners are passionate, committed, and well-educated about aircraft noise and policy. Thus, existing commissioners could be disappointed if the commission disbanded. • Will the public see the decision to end the ARC as a message that airport noise is no longer a concern in the community? Options for Next Steps If the ARC is changed or abolished, the following are a few options or approaches that could be considered, understanding this is not an exhaustive list. Memo: Future of ARC July 7, 2021 Page 5 1. The Council could dissolve the commission by resolution (per the Handbook for MN Cities). 2. The Council could choose to keep the ARC through 2021, letting the five commissioners finish their terms, and then end the commission in 2022. 3. The Council could abolish the ARC and create by resolution an airport noise ad hoc committee to address airport policy issues as they arise. Such an ad hoc group could be made up of existing ARC members and meet two or three times per year to stay current on airport policy matters and operations. The committee could then be called together if and when any significant airport policy matter comes forward (e.g., Area Navigation (RNAV) changes that would impact Eagan). 4. The Council could keep the ARC in its current form. Depending on the ultimate direction of the Council, community-wide messaging would be important if the commission is altered in any way. Specifically, the City could reiterate Eagan’s commitment to addressing the impact of the airport on the community. I look forward to the dialogue of the Commission on this important topic. Please reach out to me directly if you have any questions prior to the July 13 ARC meeting. /s/Dianne Miller__________ Assistant City Administrator