Date: August 27, 2025
Meeting Type: Zoom Webinar
Meeting Opening
Andres Mantilla (Host/Facilitator): Welcome everybody to tonight’s meeting August 27th. Fairly robust agenda. So want to get going to make sure that we have time. Today we are going to be focused on hearing from our guest speaker from the commercial aviation working group to give an update. We are going to do some work to finalize the start 2025 2026 priorities. Have a little bit of an interactive exercise there and then go through our working group and set up updates. We have three public comment speakers signed up currently and so when we get to that point we will hear from them.
As usual, my name is Andres Mantilla. I’m joined by my colleague Cheryl Swab. I’m a facilitator and she’s project manager. If you haven’t heard from us in this process, you I assure you, you will. And so, if you have any overall questions, we are the people to get in touch with and we have information and answers for you.
As a reminder, this is a Zoom facilitated platform. It’s a webinar panelist style format. What that means is that start members and guest speakers are our panelists. They can speak during the meeting. They can chat with facilitators, guest speakers and lead port staff. Observers are attendees. They can see speakers and can see presentation materials but they are not visible to start members or presenters and the chat is not available. Once we have public comment, the facilitator will make the commenters temporary panelists and commenters will turn on their video and unmute at that time and everyone will be able to see and hear all the commenters when they’re called on.
A reminder of the start member roster that you can see here. And a reminder that only start members and presenters are invited to speak during the agenda. And I invite you to use the hand raise function to help me see you. You are also welcome to put comments in the chat if that’s more appropriate for you at that time and we will be monitoring and paying attention to the chat as well.
We’ll start as we do with our expectations and ground rules. We have agreed that everybody will participate. We’ll focus on the subject at hand. You will represent your constituency. Respect diverse views. Communicate fairly. We commit to participating fully and honestly, speak respectfully, keep an open mind, acknowledge all participants, allow people to share without fear of criticism, and then our facilitation commitment to you all is one of neutrality, transparency, clarity, making sure that each voice is heard, beginning and ending on time, and then having clear follow-up and action steps.
Another reminder that we will have public comment towards the end of the agenda.
We require through our operations agreements that start meetings will not be officially recorded, audio or video recorded. If anyone wishes to audio or video record a meeting, they are required to notify the facilitator prior to beginning recording. And then any recordings by participants or members of the public are not considered official or necessarily accurate recordings of the meeting. And for awareness of everybody, we do have somebody that has requested to record today. So, we just, you know, there’s somebody that’s recording the meeting and take that into advisement and then I’ll turn it over for our opening comments.
Opening Comments by Arif Ghouse
Arif Ghouse: Yeah, thank you. Good evening, everybody. I would like to start by thanking everyone for participating tonight. We’re in the final weeks of summer travel season, a busy season, and so it’s I’m thankful that so many people have found the time to attend tonight’s meeting. And thank you to the ports team, Tom Fagerstrom, John Flanagan, and Eric Schinfeld for presenting tonight later on tonight. And thank you to Ann Richard from WSDOT. She’s the director of aviation there. And thank you Ann for attending and your willingness to talk about the work of the commercial aviation work group otherwise known as CAWG.
START has been a has a keen interest in CAWG and I know Ann will provide us with some informative progress report on the latest on that working group. SEA airport has had a very busy summer. In fact we’ve experienced record-breaking passenger levels several times this summer. It continues to be a very very busy airport. The port’s robust capital programs and master planning effort also known as SAMP are designed to address this growing demand and make the experience for our passengers at sea as predictable and enjoyable as possible. But as long as our state continues to grow and we’ve seen that happening consistently, so will the demand for air travel and air cargo. I can speak for SEA in that we know we won’t be able to accommodate all that future demand and I know the residents of our near airport communities don’t want us to.
The best ways for us to address concerns about aircraft noise is to find another place for the aeroplanes to land airplanes to land and to explore intermodal solutions. Identifying where that added capacity can be is why the role of the CAWG is so important for us.
The CAWG has a central role to play in coming up with a plan of action and as the port of Seattle’s representative on CAWG I will advocate for a plan to be developed and finalized as soon as possible. The economic well-being of Washington state is dependent on the CAWG doing its legislative mandated work and the communities that surround SEA also deservingly need the CAWG established path forward. Let me thank again Ann for being with us tonight and for her leadership. We at the port of Seattle and everyone who serves on START are here to help in any way we can on the CAWG’s efforts. And with that I’ll hand it back to Andres.
Commercial Aviation Working Group Update
Andres Mantilla: Thank you. Well, with that, we will go right into the update on the commercial aviation working group and I will stop sharing screen and let you introduce yourself and I know you might have some visuals that you might want to share and so I’m happy to either have you share them or share the screen again and then have you dictate when you’d like me to move forward to it. But over to you, Andre, sorry. We worked that out that you’re actually going to run them for her.
Ann Richard (WSDOT Aviation Director): All right. So, Andre, thank you very much for helping me through this and Arif, thanks very much for your gracious introduction. I’ve enjoyed working with you and look forward to continue to work with you for a good long time yet. So I want start to be aware that this is a briefing on where we are so far since the last time we talked about the work of the commercial aviation work group. I’m going to be right upfront and tell you it’s gotten off to a little bit of a slow start and that is a little bit disappointing. However there’s that’s for very good reason. So that’s what I’m going to go through and talk about and spoiler alert at the end. There’s lots of reasons to be very optimistic. So I think we’re at a jumping off point right now.
Working Group Composition
First off, just to remind everybody, the commercial aviation work group was established by the legislature and it’s composed of 19 voting members who are appointed by the governor. At this point right now, there are only 13 of those 19 slots that have been appointed and I’ll get into the reasons why we’ve got still got six vacancies at this point. So we’ve got 19 voting members and then there are also 11 nonvoting members that the legislation identifies the representation of those non-voting members, but it’s up to the voting members to invite the non-voting members to join. So, that’s been a little bit of a work effort, too.
Of those 11 non-voting members, currently, there are eight of those slots filled, and that includes two members of the Washington Senate and two members of the Washington House, and then somebody representing the WSDOT Aviation Division, that’s me, and then someone representing the Washington Department of Commerce. And there’s been some turnover in that seat, too.
Challenges in Standing Up the Group
So, first off, as the governor’s office has made appointments, a standard thing that they do with any board or commission that requires gubernatorial appointments is appointments are always made for a certain term. And the governor’s office when they’re establishing the terms, when they’re making appointments, they don’t have everyone be at the same term because the idea is when terms expire and if there’s some turnover and replacing people, they don’t want everybody’s term to expire at the same time. So, as a result of that method, some of the appointments were made with their initial term expiring within a couple of months.
And so, part of the reason that we’ve gotten kind of a slow start with the working group is that by the time they met for the first time, some of the appointees terms had already expired. So that kind of threw some people for a loop a little bit. So that’s one issue and I’ll talk some more about the terms of appointment and what’s going on with that and how we’ve solved that.
And then some people have left their positions. We all know that Arif is now acting general manager of SEA airport because Lance Little left. Well, similarly the executive director of the Spokane airport moved on to another opportunity and he had been one of the appointed members to the CAWG. So, the good news from that is that Spokane has hired a new executive director. He’s a well seasoned airport executive that I’ve known for a long time. He’ll be starting in October. So, I’m assuming that he will be appointed to fill in that role. But that’s just an example of when we’re working with groups of people like that, there is just some natural turnover. So, that’s affected the group.
But then and this is something that maybe the start members can help with. The governor’s office has had challenges getting people interested in being appointed in these two specific representation groups. The freight forwarding industry and the trucking industry. And so, I’ve done what I have been able to through WSDOT to kind of identify leaders in those industries and request that they request to be appointed from the governor. And I know that other people have done that similar process. That just has not resulted yet in appointments for those two groups. And I think that those are critical because I know when we’re thinking about the future of SEA it’s kind of natural for everybody to think about passenger traffic but cargo is a big part of it. So I think it’s important to have this representation on the group. So that’s one of the challenges the governor’s office has been dealing with is getting those representations.
Also for the non-voting members and remember those people are invited by the voting members to join the CAWG. But even though they’re invited by the voting members, once again, the legislation defines the representation that the non-voting members will be representing. And so I kind of and maybe this was just foolishness on my part. I just kind of made an assumption that for example, one of the representation categories it was the that there would be a non-voting member from the Washington State Aviation Alliance, which is an organization that’s really made up of the membership of all the various aviation associations in Washington. And I just made an assumption that that would be an easy one because the CAWG would go to the Aviation Alliance and say, “Who is it that you want to give us?” And you know, then that’s the way it would work.
But the CAWG decided the members the voting members decided not to do it that way. For all of the representation groups of the non-voting members they’ve just discussed among themselves who they would like to invite. So I think that not on purpose but kind of it that’s resulted in another delay because they have made some invitations for the non-voting numbers and those people have declined because they didn’t kind of self-select you know beforehand and raise their hand and say pick me pick me. So we’ve kind of worked through that process.
So then I talked about the terms that expired. The members of the work group, the voting members who are on board, they are very concerned about making sure that the work of the work group is public, that it’s representative of all of the concerns of citizens of Washington state, and they don’t want anyone to feel like they’re doing anything kind of behind closed doors or in any kind of sneaky hidden agenda way. They really really want to be operating in the open daylight. And so, as they were putting together their work rules, their charter of how they’ll operate, they were concerned that members, voting members whose terms had expired, maybe aren’t considered to actually be members of the group. And so they when they set out their work rules at the beginning said that okay if you’re a voting member but your term has expired then you won’t get a vote. So then that kind of took the number of appointees and effectively reduced the number of appointees on the working group and it actually kind of messed with the quorum process of you know how many people it would take to approve anything that they wanted to do.
And to give you an example and maybe this is a review of what we talked about a year ago. This working group is an independent group. I sit on it again as I talked about on the last slide as a non-voting member and this is not a WSDOT project. I’m involved because my agency is providing administrative support to the work group but the work group is an independent group on their own. So as the members were appointed and started to get together, they had to determine their leadership, how they were going to operate, if they were going to have a chair, vice chair, co-chairs, how they were going to do that, and how they were going to operate and I refer to that as their charter. So how they’re going to make decisions, how you know how what is a quorum going to be. So, it’s taken a while for this group of people who most of them didn’t know each other before this to figure out how to work together independently on what every single one of them understands is a really important challenge that there’s a lot of interest in the greater community and they know they’re being watched. So, while that’s important and it’s good that they understand that, that also takes a little while for them to work through all of that.
And then the last thing I have on here is the process for hiring a consultant. The legislation also allows the work group to hire a consultant. And the legislation is pretty broad. So consultant to do research to lead the meetings whatever it is so before the working group had started meeting oh and I’m sorry let me clarify there since they are an independent group that’s one of the services that WSDOT is providing to the work group is it’ll be the WSDOT contract office that’s contracting for the consultant. But the consultant will actually be working for the work group, not for WSDOT. But that’s a little bit of a paperwork issue hurdle that we had to overcome.
Andres Mantilla: And a question in the chat here from Alou. What type of oversight, if any, does what type of oversight, if any, does the state legislature or governor have over the CAWG?
Ann Richard: The governor’s oversight, and that’s a very good question. Thank you. The governor’s oversight is through the appointment process. So really once the governor makes the appointments his work is done. The legislature has the most oversight because they’re the ones that drafted the legislation that created the work group.
And then just kind of a to remind everybody, it was the 2023 legislature that actually created the work group. And then the 2025 legislature that just met this you know in January they made some changes to the legislation that refers to the work group. So in that way through legislation it’s the legislature that has oversight and that’s the reason that they gave themselves four seats as non-voting members on the work group too so that they can be there and participate and actively be engaged in the work. I hope that answered the question.
Andres Mantilla: Thank you.
Meeting History and Progress
Ann Richard: All right. So, before I move on to this slide, I just kind of want to do a recap that, and the one bullet point that wasn’t on here. But I think it’s worth noting that where a lot of this is reliant on the governor’s office appointing people to the work group. Well, another thing that happened this last January is we got a new governor. So, the office that had been working on the appointments and didn’t finish the job yet. There was some appointments to be made and then we had these expired terms with this question of, okay, well, are those people done? Are they going to be replaced? Will they be reappointed? What’s going to happen with them? So, then we had Governor Ferguson come in and take over. And so, it takes some time for the new governor’s team to kind of put together their priorities and figure out what’s going on with this process. So, that was another element that kind of had an impact on the whole process.
I know everybody’s probably pulling out your tissues right now because this is all the bad news, but I promise we’re getting close to the good news.
So, these are the meetings that the groups had so far. The first time they met was in July last year of 2024. And that was probably just right about the time that we had our first meeting. So, remember that the work group was created by the legislature in 2023. So, already a year had passed. And part of the reason that it took so long even to have their first meeting was because of the delay in making the appointments. And so once the legislation passed in 2023, then the governor’s office had to begin making appointments. And they didn’t make them all at once. And so there was quite a bit of discussion between the executive appointments office in the governor’s office and myself about okay how now once you started rolling out the appointments give me an idea of when you feel like it’s enough that we can start you know that we can organize a meeting. So it really took a year to get enough of those appointments made so that we had a big enough group to even have a meeting.
So then again just as a little bit of a recap that the first meeting they had to get to know each other review the legislation and understand what it was that they were coming together to do, understand all the roles primary of which was for me to say that I’m there introducing all of them but this is not my project. They needed to take an ownership role and invite the non voting members and create their operating charter and kind of their rules of engagement. So during that time from January of 2024 then to then March of this year there was still appointments being made. During that time the question had come up because as I said at the first meeting in July of 2024 some of the appointees terms had already expired. So we were dealing with all of that. And some of the members of the group didn’t want to meet again until all the appointments were made so that they could say this is the fully completed group. And so it took a lot of pressure from the governor’s office to say no we the governor’s expectation is and I think that we had help from the legislature as well to talk to the members of the group and say our expectation is that you’ll go ahead and start work while the appointments are happening.
So then in March the I think that’s when everybody was like okay we can’t wait any longer. This is important. We got to we got to get some work done. So then that’s when the real kind of meeting process started. So at this point there is a chair and a vice chair. And as I said they have made many invitations to the non-voting members. So the group is filled out and at this point so you can see there’s another meeting scheduled for September 17th so just a couple of weeks from now. So they have now decided that they will meet every two months. So they’ve got a regular schedule and kind of rotate between those meetings being live and the live meetings will always be hybrid. So the people can always observe or join the meetings via Zoom as well. And then every other meeting will be only on Zoom. So this kind of thing. So the September 17th meeting will be in Yakima. They’ve decided that they wanted to go there. As a matter of fact, the July meeting was at Paine Field in Everett. So they are looking to get around the state and look at some of the other airports that have been talked about.
Consultant Selection Process
All right, so then I talked a little bit about the consultant selection process. Once again I’m going to be brutally honest here because I can’t help it. I’m a human being and this has been something that I think once we get a consultant on board it will be really helpful. But I’ve been engaged in this process for since before the CAWG was born and I had some ideas in my mind about how we could use a consultant to support the work of the work group.
But as the group came together, once again, these were all individuals that didn’t know each other and had to kind of think it through themselves. So, I had spent a year putting together a draft scope of work for a consultant to work with the working group. But as they got together for the first time, they said, Ann thanks, but no thanks. This isn’t your project. It’s our project. We want to figure this out. So that was another part of the delay because the group took their time to understand kind of my philosophy that I that showed in the scope of work that I put together and then thinking about you know did they want to use that? Did they have some other ideas? But at the last meeting they finally said yes and thank you very much for your work. They made a couple of slight tweaks, but mostly we’re moving ahead with the consultant selection process right now.
So, the RFQ for this consultant to support the work group is on the streets right now. Proposals are due September 5th and what it’s calling for is a consultant that their primary role will be to facilitate the work of the working group and to me this is part of the good news that I think things are going to be happening because so far the group and I’ve used this term a couple of times they don’t know each other they’re trying to be respectful and maybe they all have different ideas of the direction they want the group to go. So I think having even though they have a chair having a facilitator whose only goal is to keep the work moving forward I think that will be really helpful.
One of my recommendations that showed through my draft scope that I gave to the group was, I wasn’t envisioning the facilitator being only a facilitator, but somebody that also had behind them a team of transportation professionals so that they could not just help the group talk to each other, but help steer towards if you have a question, okay, this is where we go for the answers. And here that I said transportation professionals, not aviation professionals, because I think as we look at this issue, it’s going to involve all the modes. And so, we’re going to have to do some look at transit service, the future of the Cascadia high-speed rail in the I-5 corridor, what’s going on with the I5 corridor. All of those things will play a role in serving the aviation needs of the region.
So again the RFQ is being advertised right now for a consulting firm whose primary responsibility will be to facilitate the group also to help the group understand existing research that’s already been done because there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. So make sure that they do a literature review and go through that with the group so everybody knows everything that’s already out there and then provide additional briefings as the working group sees fit whatever additional information they may need.
And so the RFQ has this list but this is by no means a comprehensive list. This is just kind of for starters air service analysis. So what are the needs of the airlines and how are the airlines likely to act and what are ways to incentivize the airlines to perform in the way that the work group is trying to get them to do.
Washington state legal issues. And I put that in the RFQ on purpose that the group needs to be able to demonstrate that they have Washington state legal expertise on their team. Because this is interesting. I’ve said several times here because this is important that this is an independent group and this project isn’t under the control of WSDOT. It’s not a WSDOT project. And as a matter of fact, as I’ve been working through some of these issues with the attorney general’s office, the attorney general’s office isn’t able to provide legal advice to the work group because again, this is an independent group. So, I’m anticipating that there will be some legal questions that the group will have. So, the consultant has to be able to answer those legal questions because we can’t rely on the attorney general’s office to do that.
Construction timelines and costs. Advanced air mobility. I think we talked about that a little bit a year ago, but just really briefly. That’s emerging technology in the aviation industry that to some extent will play a role in the work of the work group. Advanced air mobility is mostly focused on alternative fuels and sustainable aviation and so we definitely have to understand what role that plays in the traffic that’s currently at sea.
Small community air service. That’s kind of a term in the airport industry, but that refers to regional air service. And so I wanted to make sure that there was some understanding of that because that’s all the smaller communities in Washington and Oregon that fly the smaller regional type of aircraft into SEA and then make their connections there. So as the airspace in SEA gets tighter that’ll be a that will be a challenge because typically the smaller aircraft kind of gets squeezed out and we definitely don’t want to have a negative impact on air service to communities like Wenatchee. So we want to make sure they have their ability to make their connections. And maybe SEA is not the place to do that. And then also some experience in multimodal transportation planning and I just talked about that a little bit and all of the different modes that will be involved in that.
So as I said the proposals are due September 5th. So that’s coming right up. After that a subcommittee of the working group will review the proposals and then come up with a short list of maybe three or four or five consulting firms that they want to interview and then they’ll do interviews and then they’ll select a firm. So then I’m guessing it’ll be probably the November meeting or possibly the January meeting that they’ll be this consulting facilitator on board to really help lead them. And I’m anticipating that the first work that the group will do with the facilitator will be to put together a kind of a task list of okay looking forward this is what we’re going to do. And then once they have that scope of work of you know the task list what the work group’s going to do then with that they can put together a budget because that’s one thing that the legislature has been asking me over and over again. Did we give you enough money? Do you need more money for the work group? And without knowing what it is they’re trying to do, it’s impossible to come up with a budget. So, so this is why I’m saying even though it seems like this has been a really slow start, there are a lot of these elements coming together that I think in the next couple of months, boom, it’s all going to come together and they’re going to be ready to just start barreling forward and really start accomplishing things.
Questions and Discussion
Andres Mantilla: Thank you, Ann. This has been an issue that START has identified as a priority. So, I really appreciate the information and update. And we’ll now turn it over and open it up for questions. And if you want to again raise your hand, I’ll call on you or if you want to put it in the chat and we’ll make sure to be monitoring that. So, I will call on Roger first. Go ahead, Roger.
Roger Kaden: Sorry, my box just disappeared when I raised my hand. Yeah. First of all, thanks to Ann for putting this together and trying to put everything into perspective. I’m going to have some fairly harsh comments and I want her and I want the rest of the group to understand they’re not directed at anyone in particular here and certainly some of the capable people that I see on my screen here that represent SEA are really fighting in the trenches so to speak. But what we have here is something that started clear back in 2023. And we’re still trying to figure out, gee, what’s our task list, three years, we’d all be speak classic phrase, we’d all be speaking German if this was World War II era.
It’s an epic fail. I mean, there’s no other way to describe it. It’s an epic fail. I heard these very same promises concerning this group when it switched from the other group three years ago. I don’t I think the proposed changes in terms of the facilitator with expert subconsultants is an excellent idea. But I look at assuming that we had a plot of land right now, put a second airport on. And knowing it would take realistically 10 years before that airport became operational.
And I look at the capacity schedule at SEA as it stands now or even with the increased SAMP project completed, we’re dead in the water. We are constrained and I just do not see any leadership either from the legislature or particularly from the governor’s office at all.
This there’s no other way to describe it. We were close. The previous committee was close. They were actually narrowing down to some sites and then it got cold feet. The folks the NIMBY the not my backyard crowd raised its head and our former governor didn’t want that for his legacy and he ash canned the previous group and threw this. So, I have a real problem because I just don’t know where we go from here. I’m strongly supportive of the proposed going forward that was on the last slide, but we’re too late.
So anyway, that’s it’s just a matter of the surrounding community here is frustrated, completely frustrated about what’s occurring at the airport and we’re trying our best to cooperate and help, but boy, this is just sad.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks, Roger. And any comment any anything you want to add based timeline? Anything else you want to add to address Roger’s comments at all?
Ann Richard: Yes, that wasn’t really a question. But, thank you for your voice of support for the process moving forward. As I said, I’m feeling very optimistic. Do you think they’ll get a timeline? Do you think they seriously will get a timeline together in six months? I do because I think they’ve had a hard time trying to figure out how to organize themselves. But they are very motivated. But the one thing that I would offer Mr. Kaden is there’s always a public comment period on at all of their meetings and I would I think it would be very appropriate for you to make that comment to them at one of the meetings so they can hear from you directly.
Roger Kaden: Yeah, I think that would be appropriate. Thanks, Ann.
Andres Mantilla: And just just adding that this topic is also on our state legislative agenda, which we’ll talk about later. And just, you know, obviously this is an area of high priority. And so, we might have a lot of kind of frustrations and feelings to share. If we could just also make sure that we have if there’s questions that we want direct answers from Ann, that’d also be helpful as well. So, I’m going to go to Joe. I think I saw Joe’s hand. And then Jeff, go ahead Joe.
Joe Dusenberry: Yes, thank you Ann for your assessment of this situation. I know it’s politically fraught to say the least. This and this is probably in my memory about the third iteration of this effort and again honestly past efforts have not been successful and here in Des Moines our citizens really don’t share any have any optimism that that this will be successful in the future and even if it is you know Roger mentioned the timeline It’s so far out that it’s really hard to to to really try to figure out what the impact how that’s going to affect the surrounding airport communities. This is certainly important to the state and as a state level effort that’s great. Legacy transportation is incredibly important at the port level. I’m sure at some level where there’s a group that does strategic planning and that’s important for them to know what’s going on out there in the state. But for us for start this has no priority for the citizens of Des Moines.
This we are interested in making the port of Seattle the airport the best airport it can be. We are interested in mitigating the impacts of the operation of the airport. We don’t see how another airport, if another airport popped up someplace tomorrow, we don’t see how that’s going to change our lives at all. And so we think we should be at this level at the start. We should be focused on what is happening here in our airport communities. What you know if some other community wants to build an airport, knock yourself out. Go for it. Form a district, tax yourselves to build an airport. But in the meantime, getting back to air mobility and small communities, I say send your people here to make their connections, pay the fees to use our facility and help us pay for it.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks, Joe. The takeaway there that just as we kind of take notes is there’s a kind of parallel processes that are happening with the CAWG and some of the the SAMP and maybe having some better understanding of how those are aligned or not or related. Thanks Joe. Jeff.
Jeff Harbaugh: Yeah. Ann I love getting your perspective because you have so much knowledge but I’m sort of with Joe on this one. I’m not really clear that we can influence the process in any way that makes any difference to the cities around the airport. And if that’s the if that’s wrong, speak up and tell me why. If it isn’t wrong, I’d just like to know it so we allocate our time appropriately.
Ann Richard: Thank you, Mr. Harbaugh. I do have a response to that. Please understand that this is my own response. I’m not speaking on behalf of the CAWG. But one of my concerns with the previous work effort that was identifying airport sites is and somebody mentioned the NIMBYs. I think a process that such as that one that identifies a location without having any group or representation that’s an advocate for that location puts people in a funny position and it’s much easier for for NIMBYs to come out and say no way I don’t want an airport here than for somebody to say, yes, pick me. We want to be the ones. So, in my role as a non-voting member on the working group, one of the things I’m going to be advocating for is, requesting for communities to kind of propose what would you do? Do you want to be an airport sponsor? Is there a place that says yes, we want the economic potential that you know the economic growth that goes along with having this kind of facility and we’re willing to I think somebody already said we’re willing to form an airport commission or you know whatever entity it is to move forward and make that happen rather than having the legislature or the governor say you will do it.
And I think once we turn it around so that it’s communities looking for opportunities that they would like to participate in rather than being told you will. I think that’s where we’ll start to see some real action. So again, that’s going to be my recommendation is let’s make this an opportunity for communities to step up rather than people shying away and hoping they don’t get called on.
Andres Mantilla: And this is an important topic. We have about 10 minutes allocated on the agenda. So we’ll just keep that in mind. Moira and then Adolfo.
Moira Bradshaw: So I am also very frustrated and the question I have for Ann is do you have any sense or optimism? Do you have any optimism of anything positive coming out of this effort and then and if you’d hold that question and then also I would just add or say in response to what Joe and Jeff said we have it seems to me we need to do something otherwise it’ll always be SEA and SEA will continue to grow. I mean, it’s going to continue to grow, but I guess the rate could potentially change. And I also wonder and would suggest that perhaps as a body we would have some potential weight or impact and input into the CAWG if and Ann can respond and say yeah I think that there’s something potentially positive or or something will happen with this group some recommendation could be implemented with this group. So that’s my question to Ann.
Ann Richard: All right. Thank you very much, Miss Bradshaw. Those are some good questions and yes, I from my perspective, I’m very optimistic. I think we do have opportunities. And I know it seems like, you know, it’s all falling on SEA until something else happens. But about a year ago I started just talking to people about that we don’t we don’t have to have our mind set on a new airport. Right now PDX in Portland and YVR in Vancouver, BC are options that are kind of equidistant from SEA that could take some of the you know some of the traffic. And as a matter of fact, I’ve mentioned I5 a couple of times.
This is don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about research because I haven’t seen any data, but just from me talking to people, my gut feeling is that anybody that lives in Olympia or South is already driving to PDX because it’s just too dang hard to get to SEA. And so, and when I first started talking about, you know, well, PDX and YVR could be options, people laughed at me. But then when the new kind of tweaks to the legislation came out this last January, looking at PDX and YVR as options, was included in the legislation. And as a matter of fact, Alaska Airlines two months ago or so came out and said that if they run into capacity issues at SEA, they’re going to use PDX as kind of a pressure relief valve. So, the airlines are already looking at that. So, I think we’re already starting to see some kind of some actions that can be taken and I think that’s helpful because I really believe that there’s not going to be one solution to this complex problem. It’s going to be a series of little things that will add up. And so, looking at other alternatives for airlines is part of that.
You asked me a multi-part question. Did I answer all of your parts?
Moira Bradshaw: No, you did. I wanted to know if you were if you had any any sense of that something potentially could be implemented from this group.
Ann Richard: Oh, definitely. There needs to be interaction between start and CAWG and so as we get the facilitator on board I would love to maybe it comes from start for you all to decide how you would want to share your concerns and ideas with the CAWG but for example right now when they still don’t really have a clear sense of where they’re going. At their last meeting, they had somebody from Sound Transit talk about where Sound Transit’s going to go at Paine Field. And that’s that’s a critical part of the issue. But to me, that’s kind of getting into the weeds rather than the big issues. And so just like sound transit made a presentation to the CAWG I think absolutely start should consider doing that as well.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks Ann we’ll turn over to Adolfo and maybe we’ll make that the last question. Adolfo go ahead.
Adolfo: Thanks Andreas. Thanks Ann for presentation today. A question based on I think the desire for there to be a community to come up and say yes, we want to host a new airport. We do know that the previous effort under Governor Inslee essentially fell apart because a community that was being looked at expressed their negative things about the the impacts that we know the cities around SeaTac Airport know our experience and that we continue to experience. So I think the question itself is how how will the CAWG address the negative effects cities that surround airports when let’s say for example hearing from start members or hearing from folks like like Jeff and and me and Moira and others that have these feelings about how we’ve not always worked well with the port. We’ve learned especially within the last year that start is not a location for action. start is a dialogue location where people may not agree and clearly we’re seeing that the cities do not agree with the port. We also have come across instances where we believe and I’m not going to put words the mouth of other cities but we believe that the port is actively lobbied against the best interest of cities that are trying to you know alleviate the issues that are faced by our residents. So if the desire from the CAWG is to have a community stand up and say we want to host an airport and they’re hearing from START members who are saying are you kidding like we’re drowning over here and the state is turning a blind eye. Our partner again from my perspective not from other cities. our partner in the port is hiding behind federal laws and actions from the legislature to not support what we need done. So, how does how would CAWG expect to find somebody stand up to support an airport seeing all the negatives that are affecting existing cities?
Ann Richard: Well, that’s an easy question, isn’t it? I think what you just defined is exactly the challenge that we’re facing here. But I well for one thing the city of Yakima has already stepped forward and said if we can figure out a way an efficient way to get people from the Puget Sound area to Yakima we would love to take that traffic. So, there’s one. I hate to speak for Snohomish County, and I’m not speaking for Snohomish County. But it was maybe about a year ago that they officially changed the name of the airport to Seattle, Paine Field International Airport or whatever it is, they put Seattle in the name. So to me that sounds like a little bit like Snohomish County is stepping up and saying we want to be a part of this. And there was somebody from Burien that spoke at one of the CAWG meetings that said that Burien sees pros and cons that there are negative impacts to the residents as a result of the community, but there’s also a recognized economic vitality that exists as a result of the airport. So, I think as I think it’s realistic to assume that some communities will say we’re willing to to put forward our best foot to see how we can offset the negatives because we’re interested in that economic vitality. I don’t think it’s naive to think that that could happen as long as we phrase the opportunity that way again rather than the state saying you will. I’m I’m hopeful with that approach.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks Ann we really appreciate you this information. As you can tell again, this is an area of interest for the start committee. it has been identified as a priority for the next kind of over our work plan. So really looking forward to continued conversations, dialogue and updates as things progress. Thank you so much for for coming and speaking with us today.
Ann Richard: Absolutely. Thanks for having me and I will always come and work with you when you request.
START Priorities Discussion
Andres Mantilla: Perfect. Well, thank you. We are How’s everybody doing? Everybody ready to kind of move on? Everybody need a few minutes to checking in. Give us a thumbs up to keep moving on. Okay. Thumbs up from Jeff, Marco, etc. Okay, great. So next on our agenda is actually it’s a good transition because next on our agenda is a continuation of the conversation around kind of start priorities and you know to Adolfo’s point around some of the tensions around agreement and discussion. We really went in April and then at our subsequent start meeting to have a discussion around what is this what can we prioritize in this space where there’s a level of shared action where we can work within the constructs and parameters of our agreement which is one that has kind of full consensus of of the participants. So we in April did a kind of session work planning session. The following start meeting we start to kind of report out and refine some of that. Since then we also worked with the steering committee to kind of elevate some of well start committee feedback. Got some feedback from the steering committee and wanted to share that with you tonight. And the purpose of that is to continue to get feedback one more round of feedback from this group based on some observations from the steering committee allow first-time discussion. We have about 20-ish minutes to discuss and then we really want to be able to kind of if at possible achieve a consensus of moving forward to with with this prioritized list prioritized list of shared actions that we can then develop into a strategic priority framework. So, that’s what we’re doing here in the next 20 minutes or so.
Can folks see this? Okay. So, as a reminder, when we when we talked about kind of priorities, we said there’s a lot of things that we all care about and and there aren’t when we think about priorities, we think about what are the areas of disproportionate impact or influence or information where we want to focus as a group, understanding that we have this requirement of of consensus, understanding that we’re that we’re operating in a kind of somewhat restrictive space given some of the the rules and regulations of the FAA and other type of regulations and understanding that you know we can’t have everything be a priority and so in that conversation what we did is we said the we had three areas of kind of strategic priorities and working through this framework where we are starting from the left just to just to describe it a bit always being aware of what our foundational charge is, what values we have as a group, what is our intended impact and again what is our partnership structure. We said a top priority for us is to continue to move some sort of shared action towards reducing noise impact and noise impact came up again and again in our April session in our subsequent session and it continues to come forward as as a key issue. And when we think about noise impacts really the one of the things that we’re thinking about most is kind of the issues on the left. So we’re thinking about impact of the FAA DNL decision. We’re thinking about state legislation perhaps regarding pollution environmental justice legislation. And then specifically there’s a lot there’s been a lot of conversation around the federal legislation making the repair and replace program eligible for federal funding and how does that program impact the state’s program and the port’s effort to actually understand how port sound insulation packages pilot programs and other options for for future replacement can occur. So, as we think of those issues and as we understand maybe some of our legislative priorities, which we will talk about here later, we’ve determined through the steering committee that really there’s a lot of energy in the bold here on the right and hopefully folks can see this around some shared action. And so, you know, I think we can address any of the any of the items on the right, but really there’s some energy from the steering committee on around the bold as we think of what are the areas of priority within reducing noise impacts that we should focus on.
So first is having some shared action around requesting presentation from FAA on the rules for go-around and spacing issue and spacing issues be eliminating eliminated further involvement and understanding in the SAMP this third one which is spending more time to understand and really being able to digest and move forward how the port sound installation package and other pilot programs are actually being implemented. We’ve we’ve kind of gone around the conversation often in this space and this has been a a space an area of tension and so you know there there might be some some momentum there. So let me stop there. The fourth one is the FAA online portal that allows communities and and entities to submit suggestions and I might get this wrong so somebody from the group can can can correct me. Submit suggestions on flight patterns and and flight routes surrounding SEA for FAA consideration. But let me pause there and see if there’s any reaction here.
Moira Bradshaw: Thanks, Andreas. Just a comment about the the FAA online portable flight paths. I think the FAA was supposed to get back to us on an issue that they had previously created between us between them and Burien where someone brought up during the last meeting that cities may work or anyone could submit a request through the portal to amend flight paths and worked directly with the FAA through that process. Then the question was posed I believe by me that said well we have received word from the FAA through Congress Jayapal’s office directly from the FAA that cities that are associated with start are not allowed essentially to work directly with the FAA we have to work through start so I’m not sure if the FAA representative is here they could provide an answer as they said they would at the last meeting.
Andres Mantilla: Yeah thanks and if not if somebody else I do recall the conversation we had and and saying that maybe the FAA could be a presenter at the at a at a subsequent meeting to bring that information forward, but I don’t know if anybody from the port or somebody from the FAA is here to address that directly.
Arif Ghouse: I don’t believe excuse me sorry Andre I don’t believe anyone from the FAA is here who can address that issue. But we do plan if the steering committee actually the steering committee actually approved it for a upcoming meeting inviting the FAA to come in and talk more about this portal and so I think that’s something we’ll pursue for the October meeting.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks Moira. Can you explain why there are certain bullets that are bold and others that aren’t? And and I’m I’m saying this because it seems like the biggest wins that this group feels like I think that they’ve had is when they can for instance get those old planes removed and new planes in. So if they actually have some impact on changing the planes that are are the loud planes that are landing at night. So, any any anything that that this group can do to actually change that noise profile?
Andres Mantilla: Yeah, I think you’re referencing the late night voluntary program Moira that’s been on the agenda kind of generally of the start agenda for a while. Just to answer your question, the bold is kind of our sense, the consultant team’s sense of following a conversation with the steering committee where there was kind of more energy in saying like, hey, this is maybe where we think that maybe conversations can be focused, but also very clearly wanting to come back to this group to get additional feedback to say if are these areas where prioritization should occur within the shared action menu.
Any other feedback on on this list? You know, there’s been a lot of conversation around the the sound installation program. So, this is the opportunity to raise that issue. Chad, you’re on mute.
Jeff Harbaugh: Yeah. I guess I have the perception that over decades now, we’ve been trying to fix packages that have failed. We haven’t succeeded and yet we’re going to continue to try to do it the way we’ve been trying for years. And my, you know, my sense is it seems futile, especially in the new environment we have in Washington, to continue to try and do something that’s failed so many times. That’s that’s one definition of mental illness is to do the same thing time in and time out and expect a different result. I maybe I’m crazy for being involved. I’d like to see a new program. I’d like to see a program that’s something around what they do in San Francisco International Airport where they use some property taxes and then I think they have a lottery to to pick the homes that that should get should get redone and I or should get insulated and I we’ve never had a conversation about that and I’d really like to have that conversation because the current program is not working.
Andres Mantilla: So, just to reiterate, it’s not that you don’t the issue is still an important issue that you’d like to see reflected. Just the approach to the program is is repetitive and you’d like to see something new.
Jeff Harbaugh: Well, the the program is is broken from what I can tell given the number of houses that have been had their packages fixed and I just think it comes a time when you have to look at a different solution.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks, Jeff. I see Joe’s hand and then I’m going to actually move us along to the next slide. Joe, you’re on mute.
Joe Dusenberry: Sorry. In Des Moines, we agree with what with Jeff. This is a local issue. It needs a local solution and tying it to the FAA has has is just we be we feel is just going to yield more failure.
Andres Mantilla: Okay, thanks Joe.
Environmental Justice Priority
Andres Mantilla: Okay, the the other issue that came up as a priority is around environmental justice. And when we talked about environmental justice, we still need some more work to kind of although environmental justice is a big strategic priority to kind of narrow it down. So when we think about environmental justice specific to start we’re talking about sustainable aviation fuel ultrafine particulate and then as we think of the shared action there was some movement on in investing and organizing more reporting on air quality and and and fine particulate. There was the issue around maybe how not just the air airport impact but some examples around the cruise ship pollution how it was addressed as a best practice. And then really one thing that that there was some movement on here is building out an information hub that can really show the progress around how you know outcomes and deliverables are being met and what information and kind of more transparent information can be available to the public to start so that there’s more kind of transparency or you know around some of this information. some some more reporting on air quality, ultrafine particulates, and then the investment into this information hub is kind of where we saw the most immediate action here. Let me pause there and see if there are comments.
Joe Dusenberry: Yes, we in Des Moines, we think that it’s a critical issue. Air quality is a conditional critical issue. monitor study monitor study. We you know we understand that the the jets aren’t going to go away. This the the exhaust isn’t going to go away but it is important to know if there are health impacts especially to people who may have underlying health conditions or maybe people younger people with children that have some health conditions that are thinking about moving to our community. It’s really important that we have good, reliable information that we can give to our citizens. Transparent, reliable information.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks, Joe. Roger, a comment.
Roger Kaden: Yes, I’d concur with Joe on that. Absolutely. Air quality is a critical component. Unfortunately, perhaps some of the most egregious air quality issues are not easily monitored at this point. The ultrafine particles and the particulate require special equipment that virtually none of the standard air monitors will pick up. And it’s it’s relegated to the research level that consequently the University of Washington is probably one of the national leaders on and they have collected some data with that has some very concerning results. we need to make sure that those programs that the UW is doing continue to be supported and get integrated more practically in terms of monitoring programs that are occurring at at the airport because like I say the standard standard air air monitoring equipment will not suffice. And the other arm of that is to fund the health research as well to nail down for certain the direct correlation between these contaminants and adverse health effects particularly carcinogens. So there’s there’s money needs to be spent there on those programs and I would support Joe saying that we just we’ve got to do more.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks Roger. I heard in particular amongst your comments partnership with the University of Washington as a leading entity here and then the kind of crosswalk around the health determinants and health impacts around the data. Absolutely perfect.
Airport Growth and Capacity Priority
Andres Mantilla: And then finally and we just talked about this we acknowledge that this concept around airport growth and capacity even beyond the presentation we just heard is a strategic priority area. And specifically as we think about investments and I think Joe you put this in the in the in the chat around investments in high-speed rail ensuring the CAWG completes it time its work in its timely and effective manner. And here as we as we think about shared action that could actually move this this this topic we’ve talked about a broader discussion on capacity. we wanted to under continue to understand the SAMP, but we also wanted to request more information from the FAA on airport capacity and kind of what the standards and requirements are there and then to be able to tune in more on the Paine Field master plan as it relates to potential expansion and as it relates to kind of similar what we just heard from Ann how that some some of that process maybe intersects with some of the SAMP process with some of the capacity concerns. Let me pause there and see if folks have questions here.
Jeff Harbaugh: Yeah. I’d like to make a comment about the sustainable airport fuel. We have that as a priority and I’m not sure that we can impact it. It’s not that I don’t believe in it and don’t want to see it, but I’m not sure what we can do in our group to influence it. And I’m pretty sure that at least in the short to medium term, it is not going to have an impact on the communities right around the airport. So, I’m not sure it should be a priority.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks, Jeff. And let’s let’s bring that back when we talked about our legislative agenda because I think there might be some answer there, Jeff. Joe,
Joe Dusenberry: I also read that article about Alaska moving some of their flights to PDX if they were having issues here at at SeaTac. My question is can the can the airport the communities around the airport in Portland stop them from doing that if they decide they’re going to increase their flights into Portland?
Andres Mantilla: Yeah, good question. I don’t know if anybody from the port or anybody can answer that directly.
Joe Dusenberry: Joe, I’m not I’m not sure Joe exactly what what sort of method you would be thinking about have the community sue the airlines to stop them from using the airport.
Joe Dusenberry: Well, my point is that that we’ve been told that if you take the the federal money, you don’t really have any control over we have to let the airlines use SeaTac airport because we took federal money. If Portland is in that same situation and they have to take the the the flights if the airlines want to go there, then maybe that’s the site. I mean, we’ve already identified where the where the airlines want to go. the airlines are going to pick the next site. Why don’t we go with the airlines and just figure out how to get people between from say Centralia to Portland in a timely manner.
Andres Mantilla: Yeah, thanks for that clarification. And you know that may be one of the issues we hear on high-speed rail and other heard from Ann on I5 focus as well. Hello you have your hand raised there and then maybe we’ll make that the last comment. Go ahead.
Adolfo: Thanks, Andreas. Yeah, I know we’re talking about a number of different things. And one of the challenges that I see with focusing specifically on our cities, the start cities, and working with the port and trying to deal with issues related to the FAA is that we are one of dozens and dozens of major airports. there’s nothing that we can do that will enact the change that we want in Washington because we’re concerned about Sea-Tac Airport. And I see that I mean we’re just one little cog that’s a part of the bigger wheel of global billion dollar trade. But if there is actual desire from our port and the communities involved, if why not have support from the port to help us create a much bigger group? So if there start cities here in Seattle, a much bigger effort would be that the port could help us fund on a national level a way to coordinate other cities that are in the same situation that’s around O’Hare, LaGuardia, and all these other cities. So now we are actually creating a process and a way where we can enact the change that we need because if we have one member of Congress in our area and two senators that maybe will work with us or not, great. Maybe they’re even all in. But again, we’re one airport. We are fewer than, you know, a dozen cities. We are nothing in the scope of the FAA. So that could be an approach where we talk about a federal federal approach from the FAA or I’m sorry from the port to help us fund this effort so that we can actually enact change on the federal level as opposed to just banging our heads against a wall that says the FAA is not working with us.
Andres Mantilla: Yeah. so building a coalition of start or start like groups national coalition of start or start like groups. great helpful. Thank you. Well, thank you for this feedback. What we’re going to do with this is as Cheryl and I have been taking notes and we also been monitoring the chat, thanks for your comments there, is that will go back to the steering committee. And then what we will come back from that is is a more finalized list of kind of shared action, prioritized shared action. And that will be matched with our legislative priorities that we’re going to discuss here next. But really appreciate your feedback. If you if you have other feedback that you didn’t share with us for whatever reason tonight, please email that directly to Cheryl and we’ll make sure to incorporate that directly so that it’s not it’s not lost.
Policy Working Group Updates
Andres Mantilla: We are going to move forward and I am going to turn it over to Eric and John on the policy working group updates. And I’ll just ask you as we’ve kind of there’s been a few things that have come up throughout the conversation around sustainable aviation fuel around some of these other kind of national issues maybe to to incorporate that as best you can and I’ll make sure to ping you if you don’t if you didn’t get those issues. So Eric over to you.
Eric Schinfeld: Yeah. No, thanks Andreas. I appreciate that and and thanks everybody. So you know as always at this time we report on the the activities of the working group that happened in this case just a couple of weeks ago. You have in the materials that Cheryl sent out the draft of the state policy agenda and the draft of the federal policy agenda that the working the policy working group looked at a few weeks ago. I want to be really clear that that is the draft that was initially presented to the group at the beginning of the meeting. We got some additional feedback. That feedback has not yet been incorporated into these drafts. And the reason that we’re sending you the unchanged draft is because I thought it was really important to have everybody who’s not part of the policy working group see the initial see the initial documents that were shared. And then you can see in the working group notes some of the feedback about you know certain things being added certain things being addressed and then our goal is to finalize these both state and federal working group federal policy agendas at the next working group coming up. So this is still a work in progress. This is still a document that is open to feedback. And I’m really particularly glad that we’re we’re sort of in the middle of this process because like you said, Andreas, I think there’s clearly been a lot of thoughts both in terms of what should be a priority and what should not be a priority in the state and federal agenda, but also I think I’ve heard some some tactics and and you know, I’ll just say I have said for for many many years although have not been great about following up that we absolutely need to get other airport communities across the country engaged so that we are speaking nationally not just with our our little left upper left corner thing. So really excited to have that conversation our next policy working group not only about sort of what should be in the policy agendas, what should we prioritize, but tactically how do we pursue that? How do we build the larger coalitions both at the state level and the federal level in order to make sure that we’re actually going to be successful in in implementing our agendas? And we will make some of the changes that we heard at the last meeting. We’ll make some of the changes that we heard tonight in the meeting and then we’ll take any final feedback from the working groups at our our next meeting before we finalize and move forward.
Let me let me say two other things and then I’ll let John add if there’s anything he wants to add as well. First of all, you know, we have been doing these state and federal policy agendas just for a couple of years now. The state one actually the first time ever last year, the federal one for a few years. And you know, I think we have seen that there is absolutely power in standing together. You know, the fact that we brought seven priorities a few years ago to DC and four of them were enacted into law is a real testament to the power of having a set of priorities, working together on them, and partnering with our congressional delegation. And I think what you see in the federal agenda draft is that there’s really two categories that we’re looking at. One is the list of things that we had identified before that did not get enacted into law and we want to continue to push. We’re not going to give up on that. And then of course the things that did get enacted into law, we want to make sure they actually happen. The fact that there is a new administration that has different priorities. Yes, that makes it harder to get things done, but the law is still the law to the extent that people follow the law these days. and really important to say look for example there is a deadline now in statute for the FAA to finalize its process on the noise policy review and look at potential changes to that 65DNL noise contour that we’ve been clear about we think they need to review they still have to meet that timeline despite the fact there’s a new president so trying to make sure that the things that we’ve already gotten successfully passed into law actually get implemented and going to continue to get new priorities into law over the next few years. And I will say, as I said at the working group level, I’ll say again publicly in front of all of y’all, yes, this is a very different political climate. Yes, it is very challenging in DC right now in a wide variety of ways. I believe that we can get things done. I actually think that there’s a couple of things we can get done this year even through our partnerships and our strategies in Congress. So, I really do believe this is worthwhile. This is not just tilting at windmills. We do have some opportunities to continue to make progress in DC both working through the agencies and and also working through our congressional delegation. So happy to take feedback on the policy agendas online, offline, wherever. And again our hope is to finalize the next time. John, did you want to add anything else before we take any comments here?
John Flanagan: I guess maybe I’ll hold for now. I think there were a couple things mentioned during the conversation earlier this evening that we can kind of drill down on some specifics maybe.
Andres Mantilla: Yeah. Great. And then Joe, if you have a quick comment here and then John, if you can do that in like four four or five minutes, that’d be great.
Joe Dusenberry: Yeah, Joe, just a quick question for Eric. If the FAA doesn’t meet the timeline for for the part 150, what happens?
Eric Schinfeld: Well, it depends on, who’s in charge and how strongly they feel about it. At the very least, the members of Congress who supported those provisions, can continue to raise them and continue to elevate their concerns, in hearings, in letters, in calls, all the way up, you know, through the FAA, through US DOT and above. You know, there’s no sanctions, right? the head of the FAA doesn’t get fired if if he fails to meet these congressional deadlines. But Congress, you know, despite despite the current political climate, Congress, every member of Congress does have leverage, does have ability to withhold, for example, withhold nominations, withhold funding. So there are ways to exert pressure if deadlines are not being met.
Andres Mantilla: Right. Thanks, Eric. John, yeah, if you could do your piece in like four minutes, that’d be great. We can move.
John Flanagan: Yeah, sure. Yeah. So, just to circle back and I’ll go kind of in order here. One of the first things we talked about this evening in line with Ann’s presentation was the CAWG, right? And I know Adolfo had had some reticence kind of in the in the chat about whether or not we as collectively as a group have a role to play there and whether or not that should be part of a a legislative agenda moving forward. I guess I would just start by saying one of the things that I think we can claim as a success coming out of this past legislative session was reestablishing some of the language that was actually vetoed out of the enacting legislation that created the CAWG. Some of that was actually added back in in the enacted budget. And so that was something we lobbied for I think successfully in a way that actually improves the work stream of the CAWG overall. And so in line with some of Roger’s comments, in line with some comments from some other folks, I think including some specific language in our state legislative agenda that deals with reestablishing a specific leadership role for the governor or the governor’s office in that work and identifying leadership at the state level to work on the sighting issue and then also enhancing via the enacted budget and the work that the legislature is doing. some of the things or I should say the scope of work that the CAWG is responsible for. So I know and Adolfo you you’d mentioned this I think this evening and then previously as well directing the CAWG to explore opportunities to provide incentives for future airport communities things like that. Real quick as well I know that Roger had mentioned air quality and specifically wanting to call out existing work happening at UW. I think that absolutely belongs within the section we have in the agenda on air quality already. And then lastly, I would point folks to in the document that you should have received already, we have a specific mention of high-speed rail in there and the support for all of the work happening at the state level on high-speed rail. If folks want the broader history on that, I can include something in the write up that we send around after the meeting. Maybe I’ll stop there.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks, John. Any quick comments for John and Eric? Right, Jeff. Go ahead. You’re on mute, Jeff. You’re You’re on mute someday.
Jeff Harbaugh: You’d think I stopped doing that. I’d just like to advocate for House Bill 5626 to be something that we advocate for. Now, this is an issue because the port doesn’t like it and lobbied against it last year, but I still think it’s important and has a role to play and I would like to see it included.
Eric Schinfeld: Yeah, thanks Jeff. And I just wanted to flag that we’re planning on bringing that up as a proposal at the next policy working group meeting and and having that discussion there. So heard and your comment will be will be part of that discussion.
Andres Mantilla: Great. Thanks Eric. Thanks John for your comments. We go over to Tom to give us an update on the noise working group.
Noise Working Group Update
Tom Fagerstrom: Okay. Thanks Andreas. So for I’ll cover the aviation noise working group meeting that also transitioned into the part 150 technical review committee meeting as well. So for our start aviation noise working group meeting that took place on August 11th, we started with an overview of our ongoing initiatives. I presented on the Q2 results for our late night noise limitation program. Although noise exceeded overall were down. Air Transport International operating for Amazon had the most noise exceedances with 31 for the quarter followed by Eva Airways and FedEx. All airlines with exceedances are contacted by our staff through this program. There was a discussion about expanding the hours that we monitor for this program and that will likely be a further future agenda item at the working group.
For late night runway usage, we have averaged 4.2 landings on the third runway per late night. Construction projects at night during the summer can affect the numbers and cause those numbers to climb a bit as I explained at the meeting and that’s what we’re seeing this summer. Then Paris Edwards briefed the group on aircraft go-around statistics for June and July. We averaged 3.0 and 3.1 respectively per day in those months in go-arounds. He explained some of the reasons in those particular months why there were heavier days than others for go-arounds. He then covered the noise comment report for June in which a total of just over 15,000 noise comments were received with us residents from Des Moines submitting the most in the month of June.
Then we transitioned over to sound insulation updates. Julie Kinsey, our sound insulation manager, then gave her update on those programs currently underway. For sound insulation. She explained that one single family home is pending construction in 2025. There were three done last year and that a total of 61 single family homes have have not applied for the program that remain potentially eligible. And she explained that those homes the homeowners are receive regular outreach on a quarterly basis to participate in this voluntary program. For apartments, one complex has been completed in 2025 with sound insulation and a second complex is substantially in progress currently. For places of worship, construction will begin later in 2025 on that first those first places of places of worship eligible. These projects are funded at 80% by FAA grants and 20% from airport revenues for the sound insulation repair and replacement program. Julie encouraged all to review the assessment report that was produced as a result of the 2024 survey that went out to homeowners. That report is available to review at the noise program’s website under the repair and replacement pilot project. A banner there.
The eligibility criteria for the program for that program is that homes must be located within the current noise remedy boundary insulated prior to 1993 and acoustically tested at or above the FAA required 45 decibel interior noise thresholds that was covered at the meeting as well. Acoustic testing has been completed in June, July, and August for homes potentially eligible for this program. results for June and July show that five out of 58 homes tested as eligible for the program she reported. August results are still pending. The repair and replacement pilot program is proceeding with a fi with $5 million in tax levy funding from the port.
The meeting then transitioned into the fourth technical review committee meeting or TRC meeting for the ongoing part 150 noise and land use compatibility study. After roll call of TRC members, Autumn Ward and Scott Tetro from Environmental Science Associates or ESA updated the group on the noise exposure maps phase of the study. Various land uses are being overlaid within that 2032 65 DNL noise contour. That DNL contour that that 2032 future contour will be the basis for the updated noise remedy boundary at the end of the part 150 process hopefully in 2027.
This effort is paired with meeting dates that are being sent to with land use staff and members of the TRC of the local cities. This is being done to one verify the current and plan land uses land use data within those within those cities and to review local policies and regulations with the cities. ESA then covered the status of the draft NEM or noise exposure maps report which will be we are planning to be out at the end for public review at the end of September. The ESA then transitioned into a discussion of the next phase of the part 150 the noise compatibility program phase or NCP phase. This is where we address the programmatic measures to lessen noise exposure. And we they discussed the two kind of areas of one the noise abatement side of of the thing which is which is limiting noise from aircraft at the source. What can aircraft be doing differently? What can we do to lessen the propagation of that noise? And then there’s the noise mitigation side of part 150 that goes into addresses land use incompatibilities and that’s where your sound insulation programs come from. And so so they included examples of both of those types of mitigations. This discussion then finished was to look look back at the NCP measures from the previous part 150 in 2014. The TRC then finished by announcing the dates for the next public workshops and these are confirmed. They were not quite confirmed at the time, but I can confirm those those dates now that our next public workshops will be held on September 30th, October 2nd, and October 4th. There’ll be a virtual public meeting on October 15th. More details are coming out on those meetings very shortly. We’ll get those out which will include all the all the things that are going to be covered in those meetings and the formats and where and when they’re going to take place. beyond the the basic dates there. seapart150.com is where you can see a lot of this information. seapart150.com.
Then we wrapped up our meeting. I do want to end with one update. We earlier this week as part of our part 150 outreach to communities beyond the 65DNL, we met with representatives from Vashon Island. We port staff and ESA staff met in person with representatives from Vashon Island. had a very good productive discussion. We listened to their concerns and we’ll take that away and and with ESA on board with the part 150 we have an opportunity to provide perhaps a little bit of analysis of their aircraft activity and see if there’s any opportunities to make any actionable improvements with their overflights. So, we were joined by a staffer from Council Member Member Mosceda’s office and council and a staffer from Representative Jayapal’s office for that meeting as well. So, that was a good good productive discussion there. And that is the end of my my update.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks, Tom. Any quick comments, questions? Roger.
Roger Kaden: Yes. Just real quick, thanks, Tom. of your thorough work as always. Do you happen to know if you mentioned something like around 60 homes or so that are eligible that only a few had actually taken advantage. Is it possible or do you know if there’s the port still requiring a legal sign away of all navigation claims in order to get the packages? In other words, is that maybe something is blocking them from taking advantage?
Tom Fagerstrom: No, that that’s that remains that that requirement remains just as it has from the start of the program. So the requirements are are the same as they as they have been. And Tom, we’ve got we’ve got Julie Kinsey with us as well, too. Maybe Julie can we do have sound installation manager Julie Kinsey online, too, that can probably speak to these better than me.
Andres Mantilla: Yeah, we also have a question from Moira. Yeah, go ahead, Julie.
Julie Kinsey: Yeah. So, so it’s always been an interesting one, right, of so if people are eligible, why why don’t they apply? And so that’s one of the bigger challenges that we face. It’s important to keep in mind that, you know, these 60 61 homes, they’ve been eligible since 1985. And so it’s a case of you’ve got people that for whatever reason, they just have not moved forward. So, a number of the things that we’ve done as part of our quarterly outreach is, you know, trying to make sure that if it’s rental homes, because if you don’t live there, you might not necessarily feel the impact. And so, we purposely do our outreach so that it gets into someone’s hands. And if it’s a if it’s a tenant, then they’re advocating for their owner to to move forward. We do periodically get tenants that apply and then you know we work with them to try to get the owner’s information to perform outreach to to them. I know one of the questions that’s come up is, you know, do we ever try direct engagement with if we know that the property owner doesn’t live there and we have tried that, but what we have found is is that the advocacy from the tenant who’s paying rent and saying, “Hey, I’d really like this work done.” That’s what actually makes a big difference. We had a great success story with that where was a long-term tenant. They’d been there for 25 years in this home. the owner was fully aware of the of the program and just never took advantage of it and yet a couple years ago they did and they were very happy with the outcome. So it continues to be something that we do but you know just bear in mind that after 40 years of saying essentially no it’s the challenge is getting people to say yes. What we do find is when new owners move in that’s who generally applies for the program. And so we have an excellent success rate with with new people coming in with interest rates being higher. I think we’ve seen a downturn in terms of some of those sales, but certainly coming out of the pandemic, we had a large group of people that did apply because they had purchased the home. So I hope that helps.
Andres Mantilla: Moira, we’re make yours the last kind of comment here. Are we going to move on to the SAMP update? Go ahead, Moira.
Moira Bradshaw: Hi. Hi, Julie. I’m wondering if you use different It sounds like it, but can you confirm that you use different methods of outreach, not just a a the same letter over and over and over again to the taxpayer, but maybe a phone call. And then also I was going to ask Tom, when you went to Vashon, did you did you have an FAA representative with you?
Tom Fagerstrom: Thanks. I’ll answer first. We did not. And that was by by design. we just wanted to have an across the table dialogue. And the opportunity exists because we’ve got ESA and they have the ability to take a year’s worth of flight track data and do some in-depth analysis. So we really wanted to keep it on that level. Obviously we will you know to enact change we will need to bring the FAA into the discussion perhaps but not not not yet. Think so.
Julie Kinsey: And Julie, just quickly. Yeah. Yeah. So, in terms of some of the different outreach that we do, so it’s a it’s a mix of we do postcards, we do letters, we have different messaging that we do the letters in. We also do outreach in multiple languages, understanding that there that could also be a a potential barrier. one of the more exotic things that we do and interestingly we haven’t had success with it but when we do have construction in going on in the the field we’ll actually look to see if there’s anybody on the the block that had not applied. Generally if somebody has work going on at their house that’s going to draw some interest and so we we actually even in the couple of instances where we’ve had that we’ve already kind of pre-made applications with at least the address because we know that that part of it. But even in those instances we’ve not been successful with kind of converting those people that are maybe a couple houses away and they’re seeing the work going on of getting them to to move forward. So really does become more of the persistence and the biggest factor has been new new homeowners being more active in in moving forward.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks Julie. I’m going to move us along if you have more questions about the noise working group. There’s the next working group meeting or you can let us know to Cheryl or directly to Tom. So I’ll queue up Sarah to give us the update on SAMP.
SAMP Update
Sarah Cox: Sarah, you are on mute. There we can hear you now. There you go. I think Claire you cannot see you. Claire’s going to be covering this. So I’m passing it over to her.
Claire Gallagher: Thanks. Thanks. Thanks Sarah. Let me just step through this for folks. Good evening. First all I want to confirm that the work is continuing to remain on schedule for the FAA’s publication of their NEPA environmental assessment for the sustainable airport master plan. So that’s great news given some of the ups and downs we see in the federal government, but they’ve they’ve remained on schedule. So their final date of actual publication isn’t yet confirmed. We’ve got to wait a couple more weeks before they get that in. that they have told us to share that they expect to publish the EA and what’s called a record of decision which is their article as early as September 22nd or so through October 31st sometime in that window. And that document I just want to flag also has the response to comments that were received during the earlier 53-day comment period last year, last October.
So in advance of the release coming the end of September or end of October, the port staff, we’re going to go ahead and we’re scheduling a a briefing to the port commission in public session. following the publication. So those briefing dates are during one of the regularly scheduled commission meetings. And so those dates, just to remind folks, September 23rd, October 14th, or October 28th and Andres or Cheryl, if you could just note those in the chat, that would be great. And we will confirm which meeting the briefing is on as soon as we get updated by FAA. But I wanted to confirm this timing and these dates for you while we’re about a month out and and while you’re meeting tonight. So, we’ll also do a press release pointing to where the final document is available. We have six different newsletters that we’ll put in and we’ll put it on we’ll share it on our website and the social media sites and we will deliver hard copies to the seven libraries that it that the draft went to.
The publication of the environmental assessment and the record of decision then begins the the FAA’s 60-day appeal period. And then that that runs for those those 60 days. So that’s the status of of the environmental assessment. And then I just want to remind folks that with regard to the port’s EIS environmental impact statement work for SEIPA, we’re on schedule to publish that draft we hope in in Q1 of 2026. So that’s what I’ve got for you tonight.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks, Claire. Lots of information. I put it some of the the key dates in the chat. but we’re also going to put those in the notes and so you don’t worry about necessarily needing to write those down just yet. Any questions for Claire? Great. Thanks so much, Claire. Appreciate the information.
Public Comment
Andres Mantilla: Okay, I’m going to share my screen again and we’re going to go to public comment. there are three people who are signed up and Cheryl will go ahead and start moving you o over. The first public commenter I think is no longer here. Cheryl, can you confirm that it’s a muin just down just to now okay thank you. And so, first we have Brian Davis. You have two minutes, Brian. Go ahead.
Brian Davis: Thanks, guys. Good to see everybody. I’m Brian Davis, vice chair of the Burien Airport Committee, and I’d like to let folks here know that our city leadership has determined that the port’s sound insulation repair and replacement program is not viable in its present form. At the request of the Burien City Council, our city manager will soon communicate this formally to the port commission. Degradation of so-called port packages has been a problem for decades. Of course, just last year, Congress approved use of federal funds for repair and replacement. The port followed with a pilot program which tested only for acoustics. It didn’t consider shoddy installation, which was a significant problem. Didn’t examine other common issues like mold or foggy windows or structural failures that mean windows won’t close. of several dozen homes tested, and I’m kind of going off of what we just heard from Tom Fagerstrom, only five have qualified for federally funded remediation. So, we can’t rely heavily on federal dollars to pay for this work. New state funding is a worthwhile pursuit. That seems remote. The Washington legislature last year appropriated $10 million for port package repairs, and all of that was clawed back. In light of the state’s ongoing budget crisis, it’s tough to be optimistic about near-term help from Olympia. Another problem, as aircraft have become quieter, the 65 DNL high noise zone has gotten smaller. Hundreds of properties outfitted with port packages are now ineligible for remediation because they’re now outside the zone. And that is terribly underrated. It’s time to overhaul the port package replacement program thoroughly, allowing use, among other things, the original 65 DNL boundaries that guided these installations. Further, the Port of Seattle should, in my personal opinion, fund the new program with proceeds from its property tax levy, as the city and county of San Francisco does for San Francisco International Airport. $3 million a year would be about three and a half% of the Port of Seattle’s present annual property tax revenues. That’s a small share, which would go a long way toward helping people, many of modest means, who have been waiting years for relief. Thank you.
Andres Mantilla: Thank you, Brian. Thank you for your comments. Next up, we have David Goble.
David Goble: David, if you can come off mute on camera and off mute. Thanks for Yeah. Hi. David Goble, president of Vashon Fair Skies. And yes, thank you, Tom, for setting up that meeting on the specifically on the part 150 study and bringing the the representatives from ESA Environmental Associates there to help provide some technical expertise and guidance for what they’ll be doing with it. when I saw your your slides for the the 25-26 priority framework, obviously disappointed that there’s no mention at all about including many of the other communities that that are severely impacted. I did note come to surprise actually that Vashon isn’t number one anymore. We’re number two now in terms of cities. We’re not technically a city and that I’ll get to that in just a moment. the most the most upset about this in terms of actually if you measure that by the metric of complaints both total complaints and complaint households and by zip code, I think we actually are number one still. It’s, you know, we have this, it’s an otherwise peaceful place. And there’s no man-made noise, but now there’s this, PBM performance-based navigation, area navigation, 250 flights a day in 100 yard wide track, 2,000 ft lower than they were before. NextGen is just absolutely shattered, the entire natural environment here. and you know, we’ve when we first were were petitioning to get on start, the the response we got back from the the minutes from that meeting was that because we’re not a city, we don’t have a government and that you have to be a government to be in start. Well, we got our government is King County. So, we got commission commissioner Mosceda’s office to go to the steering committee and petition not and that would include not just us but parts of like a white center that are also much closer to the airport but just happen to be unincorporated King County that could also be represented. but that was shot down for for now new reasons. It’s almost like Lucy with the football. you know we so we did the first thing we got actually got our government to represent us but now there’s a new hurdle. And one of the things that you could do right away, and I wish you would do, is do something about this this webinar panelist mode is is really really opaque and not at all transparent and go back to the way either in-person meetings, which I know you did in April when it’s important, you mean in person, which you did in April, but or or the the the hybrid meetings that that the Port of Seattle Commission does extremely effectively. it uses Teams, which support has a site license to, I’m nearly sure. So, you guys have be you could go to the level of of quality that the Port Commission meetings are, and not be so opaque. Thank you, David.
Andres Mantilla: Thanks so much. That concludes our public comment. Thank you to David and Brian for their comments.
Meeting Wrap-up
Andres Mantilla: As we wrap up, I want to thank everybody for, the informative meeting. We had a lot on the agenda. So thank you for your patience as we work through that. I appreciate your participation. As a reminder, we will have the meeting summary as we wrap up and have next steps. And then our next meeting will be October 22nd via Zoom. And in the meantime, if folks have additional questions or comments, please direct those to to Cheryl. You could also email me directly if you’d like, but Cheryl will com combine or compile all those comments and put them in the notes as well. Thank you so much. We are adjourned.
1This is a machine-generated transcript generated on the fly by Google/Youtube/AI. Accuracy totally not guaranteed. Provided only as a convenience and to help people with disabilities. Caveat lector!