Metropolitan Airports Commission

Transcription

1 Metropolitan Airports Commission Management and Operations Committee Regular Monthly Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 06, :00 pm

2 SEE ATTACHED INFORMATION REGARDING SECURITY CHECKPOINT INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Paul Rehkamp Chairman Bert McKasy Vice Chair Kari Berman Thomas Foley Mike Landy Jack Lanners Robert Mars Lonni McCauley Greg Warner Vicki Tigwell Commission Chair METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 1:00 p.m. October 6, 2004 Room 3040, West Mezzanine Lindbergh Terminal Wold-Chamberlain Field DISCUSSION 1. GENERAL PARKING RATE ADJUSTMENT Arlie Johnson, Asst. Airport Director Landside 2. PARKING REVENUE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH ZEAG Arlie Johnson, Asst. Airport Director Landside Don Olson, Purchasing Manager 3. FEDERAL AVIATION LEGAL SERVICES RFQ PROCESS INTERVIEWS Tom Anderson, General Counsel GENERAL INFORMATION 4. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT FINAL AGREEMENTS Betsy Hoium, Contracts & Projects Manager 5. SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT DESIGN CONSULTING AGREEMENT Paul Sichko, Asst. Airport Director/Maintenance 6. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Mitchell Kilian, Governmental Affairs Manager 7. TAXICAB ORDINANCE UPDATE Arlie Johnson, Asst. Airport Director Landside 8. GENERAL AVIATION SECURITY UPDATE Tim Anderson, Deputy Executive Director-Operations 9. MSP 2020 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM UPDATE Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director-Planning and Environment

3

4 MEMORANDUM Landside Operations DATE: September 28, 2004 TO: Management & Operations Committee FROM: Arlie Johnson, Asst. Airport Director, Landside Operations ( ) SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLIC PARKING RATE ADJUSTMENT Staff recommends an adjustment to the current public parking rates. MAC offers three types of parking service: valet, short term and general parking. Five off-airport parking facilities compete with us for market share, primarily for parking services of a full day or longer. Although there is opportunity to park short-term at off-airport facilities, it is impractical to do so. For this reason, the parking rate adjustment that became effective November 1, 2003, centered on the less-than-one-day rate. Self-pay parking, known as epark, was introduced in general and short-term parking in September and November of 2003, respectively. This faster, more convenient and less expensive to operate self-pay method has been very favorably received. Utilization has exceeded 50%. This technology has improved efficiency, enabling us to reduce staffing costs by $1 million annually. Our epark utilization goal is 80%, which will allow for further staff reductions, generating an additional $600,000 in annual cost savings. Recent news publications, as well as our recent survey, indicate that the public continues to expand use of credit or check/debit cards for payment of products and services. Survey results also indicate that epark is perceived to have significant advantages related to convenience and time savings. Notably, 83% of respondents indicated that if epark costs less than other parking payment methods, they would try it. Businesses often price products and services, in part, on the degree of assistance the customer chooses. Most of the operating cost associated with management of our parking enterprise is labor. The more customers use epark, the less costly the system is to manage. Staff is recommending a parking rate increase that will help recover some of the costs associated with cashier assistance and provide a savings incentive for customers to use epark. Specifically, staff recommends a parking rate adjustment of $1 per parking transaction or per day, not to exceed an additional $1 per day. We also recommend a discount equal to this rate adjustment for customers that use epark. Our objective is to achieve 80% epark utilization. Financial analysis indicates that when we achieve 80% utilization, the annualized increase in revenue will be approximately $845,000. The MAC s total projected financial benefit is $2.4 million annually when additional revenue and staff cost savings are combined.

5 COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: THAT THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION: 1. APPROVAL OF A RATE ADJUSTMENT OF $1 PER PARKING TRANSACTION OR PER DAY, NOT TO EXCEED AN ADDITIONAL $1 PER DAY, WHICHEVER IS GREATER; 2. A DISCOUNT EQUAL TO THE AFOREMENTIONED INCREASE BE IMPLEMENTED FOR CUSTOMERS THAT USE THE EPARK SELF-PAY METHOD; 3. AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.

6 MEMORANDUM Landside Operations DATE: September 28, 2004 TO: Management & Operations Committee FROM: Arlie Johnson, Asst. Airport Director, Landside Operations ( ) Donald H. Olson, Purchasing Manager ( ) SUBJECT: REQUEST PERMISSION TO COMPLETE PUBLIC PARKING REVENUE CONTROL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE CONTRACT In March 2004, staff was directed by the Commission to proceed with sole-source bid documents for maintenance of existing parking revenue control equipment at the Humphrey and Lindbergh Terminals. Maintenance is provided for all parking equipment, including revenue control computers and software, cashier terminals, automatic ticket dispensers, gate arm mechanisms, loop detectors, signs, lane interface modules, and license inventory collection devices, as well as AVI equipment such as identification tags, readers, controllers and modems. A sole-source bid process was necessary because Zeag USA, Inc. Zeag formerly PES Parking Technology, Inc., lacks a network of maintenance providers capable of supporting its products. Maintenance support on a 24-hour basis is essential for effective parking operation and revenue integrity. Parking revenue was $45 million in 2003 and will exceed $50 million in Our revenue control system investment exceeds $8 million for the two terminal parking ramps. The system has been extremely reliable since it was installed in the Fall of 1999 at the Lindbergh Terminal and in 2002 at the Humphrey Terminal. Zeag staff has done an excellent job of maintaining the system and has been very responsive to all maintenance needs. Their support and cooperation has been critical to the development and success of our epark self-pay system. Maintenance costs for the Lindbergh Terminal parking revenue control system for the last three years has been $278,441, $290,908 and $307,532, respectively. The annual cost at the Humphrey Terminal parking ramp, which is no longer covered under warranty, was $124,396. Combined maintenance costs for both ramps in 2004 is $431,928. We issued a sole-source bid request for maintenance of the parking revenue control system and equipment and we received a proposal from Zeag. The bid includes several improvements, the most significant of which is the addition of software support. The contract term is for three years with an option to renew for an additional three years upon agreement of both parties. The first year proposed maintenance cost is $432,360. Costs for future increases will be based upon actual cost increases to Zeag, not to exceed 4% annually. The minimal increase of only $432 in the first year of this contract, contractual improvements and the cost escalation terms appear reasonable. Staff recommends that the bid submitted by Zeag be approved for three years with the option of an additional three years if staff is satisfied with the service and cost proposals.

7 COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: THAT THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION THAT STAFF COMPLETE DOCUMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE SUPPORT WITH ZEAG USA, INC., FOR THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.

8 MEMORANDUM Legal Department TO: Management & Operations Committee FROM: Thomas W. Anderson, General Counsel ( ) PUBLIC MEMO SUBJECT: Federal Aviation Counsel Legal Services RFQ DATE: September 27, 2004 MAC s Consultant Selection Policy as amended in February 2003, requires that a competitive selection process for continuing consultant services be initiated every six years. The competitive selection process has been carried out on a staggered basis since In 2004, the continuing consultant contract for federal aviation law legal services was scheduled to go through the competitive selection process. A Notice for Request for Qualifications Statements was issued in July The Request for Qualifications Statements ( RFQ ) requested information relating to firm background, personnel and staffing, an equal opportunity statement, relevant legal experience, responsiveness to client needs, fees and expenses, insurance, actual or potential conflicts of interest, certificate of compliance and references. A total of five firms submitted Statements of Qualifications in response to the RFQ. Under a law that took effective August 1, 2001, RFQ information submitted by proposers to MAC remains private or non-public until MAC has completed negotiating the contract with the selected proposer(s). The names of the proposers are public once the proposals are opened. The Commissioners may discuss the information submitted in the proposals at the Committee and Commission meetings only to the extent reasonably necessary to conduct the business at hand. However, discussions outside these public meetings may not include any of the information submitted in the proposals. A review panel consisting of five individuals from MAC, (Tom Anderson, Nigel Finney, Mitch Kilian, John Kedrowski, and Pam Rasmussen) independently reviewed the qualifications statements and then met collectively to discuss the submittals. The criteria evaluated by the review panel included relevant legal experience, including lobbying and legislative experience related to federal aviation and airport issues, experience in working with Minnesota legislative delegation and staff, experience in working with various federal administrative/regulatory agenices related to aviation and airports on various federal aviation issues, litigation experience

9 (including federal administrative proceedings) involving airports; actual or potential conflicts of interest and DBE participation. The consensus of the review panel was to interview two of the law firms that responded to the RFQ. For contracts anticipated to exceed $300,000 per year, final interviews are to be conducted by the appropriate Committee of the Commission. The firms selected (in random order) to be interviewed by the Management & Operations Committee at the October 6, 2004 meeting are: 1. Palmer & Dodge 2. Spiegel & McDiarmid Each of the firms submitted qualifications statements that satisfactorily complied with all of the requirements of the RFQ. Each firm has been advised that they will be limited to a 15 minute presentation, with questions from the Commissioners, in order to expedite the interview process. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: 1. THAT THE MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION THAT ONE OF THE TWO FIRMS INTERVIEWED BE UTILIZED TO PROVIDE FEDERAL AVIATION LAW LEGAL SERVICES; AND 2. THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. /twa f:/legal/wbartlett/rfq s/federalaviationcounsel/m&o.memo

10 MEMORANDUM $LUSRUW'LUHFWRU V2IILFH TO: Management & Operations Committee FROM: Dennis Probst Director Landside Development ( ) Betsy Hoium - Contracts & Projects Manager ( ) SUBJECT: LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT FINAL AGREEMENTS DATE: September 27, 2004 Since the Light Rail Transit (LRT) project began, various agreements and project contracts, as well as amendments to those agreements, have been presented to the Commission for review and approval. Staff believes that the agreements included herein represent the final items required for the LRT system to move into full operation at the airport. LRT is scheduled to begin serving the airport on December 4, LRT will be the mode of transportation for travelers and employees moving between the Lindbergh and Humphrey Terminals, replacing the current shuttle bus service. The Hiawatha LRT line will provide direct train service from the airport to downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America. MAC is in the final stages of completing construction of the tunnel under the runways and the two on-airport stations. Based on approval by the Federal Aviation Administration, MAC has contributed $87 million to the project on a percentage of funding basis for the various on-airport components of the LRT system. I. Background In 1999, MAC entered into a Master Project Cooperation Agreement for planning, implementation, design, construction, ownership and operation of the Hiawatha Corridor LRT project. MnDOT, Met Council, MAC, Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority, Minneapolis and Bloomington are parties to the Master Project Agreement. On October 10, 2000, MAC and Met Council entered into the Hiawatha Corridor Light Rail Transit Operation & Maintenance Agreement. This agreement detailed the division of responsibilities between MAC and Met Council once LRT began service to the airport. Now that LRT service is about to begin, there are additional details that need to be covered in the agreement. The parties have, therefore, prepared an Amended and Restated Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement. This item is being presented to the Planning & Environment Committee for action because all past LRT agreements, including the original O&M Agreement, were approved by P&E. Once LRT begins operation, responsibility for administering the agreement will be transferred to the Airport Director s Office and future operational issues will be presented to the Management & Operations Committee. Any items related to capital projects would continue to be presented to P&E.

11 II. Highlights of the Agreement Fare Free Zone Based on MAC s capital contribution to LRT, passengers will ride free of charge on the segment of LRT between the two terminals and any future on-airport stations. LRT service will replace the shuttle bus that is now utilized by both employee parkers and the traveling public to move between the terminals. MAC will not be charged for LRT train service that is part of the mainline system from downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America. During certain times of the day, however, LRT will operate an extra train exclusively between the two terminals. MAC will pay operating costs only on a cost recovery basis for this airport shuttle train. Initially the airport shuttle train will operate from 10:45 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. to add additional service because mainline trains operate only every 30 minutes. The airport shuttle train will also operate from 1:30 a.m. to 4:30 a.m. when LRT is not otherwise in service because 24-hour service is needed between the terminals. Lindbergh and Humphrey Stations The two on-airport stations will be owned and operated by MAC. The Lindbergh station is located underground, attached to the Lindbergh Terminal. The Humphrey station is an outdoor station, similar to the other LRT stations. The Humphrey station will be connected to the terminal via a covered walkway that will be completed in December. The Humphrey station was designed to become part of the future second parking ramp at the Humphrey Terminal. MAC will bear the operating costs for the two stations, such as janitoring, trash removal, utilities, and repairs. MAC has the option to contract maintenance and snow removal of the Humphrey station to Met Council, who has experience maintaining outdoor stations. Easement for Tracks and Tunnel MAC will also retain ownership of the tunnel and tracks on-airport, but will grant Met Council an easement for this area for as long as there is an operating LRT system on this alignment. Once the construction project is complete, the tunnel will be turned over to Met Council who will handle ongoing operating and maintenance responsibilities. Structural repairs and future capital projects will remain a MAC responsibility, with costs being shared according to the original cost sharing formula. Humphrey Park & Ride Excess capacity in the Humphrey Terminal parking ramp will be utilized as an LRT park & ride facility. The LRT is in need of additional park and ride facilities, so this is a benefit to both MAC and Met Council. Parkers will be charged $49 per month. MAC has the ability to cancel the park & ride operation on 90 days notice should airport demands for parking increase. This arrangement was approved by the M&O Committee and Commission in August MAC revenue is expected to be $187,000 per year. Police and Fire Metro Transit, which operates LRT, will provide policing on LRT trains. MAC and Metro Transit will jointly provide policing on station platforms. Through mutual aid agreements, MAC will likely be the first responders for police and fire calls related to LRT on airport. The Commission has approved the addition of four police officers in 2004 because of increased policing needs.

12 Buses LRT service will replace the shuttle bus service between terminals. Met Council currently operates six shuttle buses, which were purchased by MAC, to provide 24 hour per day transportation between the terminals. The O&M agreement replaces the current joint powers busing agreement. At this time MAC plans to retain the buses, which will be stored and maintained by Metro Transit. The buses will be utilized for approximately 2 months during the upcoming winter charter season when certain employees are moved back to the Post Road employee parking lot to accommodate the peak travel season. The buses will also be needed for an approximately 1½ year period when MAC constructs a second ramp at the Humphrey Terminal. The buses may also be used for LRT downtime, additional transportation capacity between terminals and airfield emergencies. Budget The anticipated operating and maintenance costs for 2005 are approximately $1.2 million, which will include the airport shuttle train, busing during winter charter season and maintenance of the stations. MAC currently pays $1.8 million per year for shuttle bus costs. This represents a $600,000 savings in the annual cost of transporting employees and travelers between terminals. Kelley Lounsbury Property The LRT tracks also utilize the Kelley Lounsbury property in Bloomington. MAC plans to transfer this property to Met Council or grant an easement, but this action may not be completed until after LRT begins operation. MAC plans to enter into an agreement with Met Council to allow the LRT trains to utilize these tracks until such time as this issue is resolved. INFORMATION ITEM. NO ACTION REQUESTED. Bh/LRT M&O memo

13 MEMORANDUM Field Maintenance Department DATE: October 6, 2004 TO: FROM: Management & Operations Committee Paul Sichko Assistant Airport Director / Maintenance SUBJECT: SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT DESIGN CONSULTING AGREEMENT Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport has earned a worldwide reputation for excellence in snow removal. Manufacturers annually request that the MAC evaluate their equipment at MSP. The manufacturers invite MAC personnel to comment on equipment performance and often incorporate staff suggestions into product design. The ability to state that the equipment is used or has been tested at MSP is a much desired aspect for sales and marketing. Vammas OY is a European manufacturer of heavy equipment. Fortbrand Services of New York is the company s North American distributor. Vammas is one of two European manufacturers of snow plows specifically designed to operate around runway and taxiway edge lights (Field Maintenance is unaware of any American manufacturer of a similar product). Last year Fortbrand asked the MAC to operate and evaluate the edge light plow (EDP) because the plow was designed to meet European airport standards, staff noted several items that need to be changed before it could be effectively used at MSP. It is Fortbrand s intention to introduce the edge light plow to the North American market. The MAC was asked to provide technical assistance in the ELP design. Field Maintenance contacted the other ELP manufacturer in Norway who indicated they had no desire to modify their design or enter the North American market. The discussions with Fortbrand evolved into a design consulting agreement whereby the MAC will be compensated for its expertise. In exchange for design services, the MAC will receive a sales commission on each ELP sold in North America, as well as the opportunity to purchase ELP equipment at cost. The MAC will be reimbursed for any and all expenses associated with the design consulting, which may include travel to the Vammas factory in Finland by Field Maintenance personnel. This information is presented as an example of the innovative work done by MAC staff in an effort to hold down our costs while providing the most effective equipment for our use. THIS IS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM ONLY; NO ACTION IS REQUIRED.

14 MEMORANDUM Labor and Governmental Affairs DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: FROM: Management and Operations Committee Mitchell P. Kilian, Manager Governmental Affairs ( ) Jack Corbett, MAC Legal Counsel Spiegel & McDiarmid Washington, D.C. ( ) SUBJECT: FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Congressional leaders are hoping to wrap up essential legislative matters by October 8 th so that all House Members and one-third of the Senate can return home for election year campaigning. With only one of thirteen appropriations bills for upcoming Fiscal Year 05 completed, it is likely that most of the others will be patched together into a massive omnibus appropriations during this Congress waning hours. Whether Congress will have to return for a lame duck session after the November 2 nd election is unknown. Much of civil aviation s legislative agenda is tied up in this last press of Congressional business: while the Department of Homeland Security s appropriations bill, including Transportation Security Administration (TSA) funding, will probably be enacted separately, the FY 05 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Bill (with FAA funding) will be folded into the omnibus funding measure. In addition, Congress is intent on packaging legislation (the form of which is unclear) to respond to the 9/11 Commission s recommendations; this package is likely to include aviation and transportation security measures. Recently, MAC received a FY 04 grant from FAA (for $7 million) as part of its multiyear Letter of Intent (LOI) for the new North-South runway at MSP. In addition, TSA delivered the long-promised $3.1 million grant to restore the MSP valet parking area that was modified for conversion to a baggage screening area before TSA chose an alternative solution.

15 1. FY 05 Transportation/Treasury Appropriations Bill Fully Funds the AIP Grant Program; Only the Senate Version Includes Earmarked Funds for MSP Both the House and Senate versions of the FY 05 DOT funding bill provide $3.5 billion for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants to be made during the new fiscal year (October 1, 2004-September 30, 2005). This level marks an all-time high in Federal grant assistance to air carrier and general aviation airports. H.R passed the House of Representatives on September 22; S was approved by the full Senate Appropriations Committee on September 14. Senate floor action has not yet been scheduled. The Committee Report accompanying the House bill did not earmark the $4 million MSP apron rehabilitation project that is part of MAC s current Capital Improvement Program. While Rep. Martin O. Sabo, a senior minority member of that Committee, included MAC s project in his list of recommended projects, his request wasn t honored. In response, both Minnesota Senators increased their efforts to have the MSP earmark included in the Senate version of the DOT funding bill. The Senate Committee agreed. Thus, whether MAC will receive guaranteed AIP funds for the MSP apron rehabilitation project will be determined in the House-Senate conference to resolve the differences between the two versions of the funding bill. Whether the earmark will specify the full amount or whether the amount will be left to FAA s discretion is a related but secondary issue. Both Congressman Sabo and Senators Dayton and Coleman will be urging the inclusion of the MSP project in the final legislative measure. Both House and Senate Committee reports note that MAC will receive $8 million from FAA in FY 05 for another LOI payment toward the new runway. Finally, the House and Senate bills would make $20 million available for Small Community Air Service Development grants, to assist primarily non-hub airports in attracting additional air service to their communities. 2. MAC, Legislators Seek Alternative Funding Vehicles for St. Paul Downtown Airport Dike Project MAC and Minnesota legislators have been considering a range of approaches to generate funds for the St. Paul Downtown Airport Dike Project. The earlier House-passed Water Resources Development Act of 2004 ( WRDA Bill ) (H.R. 2557) did include a provision authorizing the Corps to work with MAC to study and, if Federal standards are met, to reimburse MAC for constructing the dike project, at a then-estimated cost of $25 million. The Senate version of that legislation as reported did not include any language authorizing the St. Paul Airport project. Senator Coleman then placed a hold on any Senate floor consideration of the Senate version of the Corps 2

16 of Engineers authorization legislation (S. 2554) until the Environment and Public Works Committee leadership addresses the dike project. At this writing it appears the Senate Committee will propose taking up the WRDA bill on the Senate floor next week, with the St. Paul Airport project likely to be included. However, it is not clear that Congress can complete this important legislation in its few remaining legislative days. In addition, the Bush Administration had indicated concern over the cost of the House and Senate WRDA bills. To obtain some initial funding for the project, Senator Coleman has proposed that $1.5 million be placenamed in the Military Construction Appropriations Bill (H.R and S. 2674) during the anticipated House-Senate conference on this measure. If approved, the Air National Guard at the St. Paul Airport would receive partial funding for the cost of its relocation at the reliever airport after the dike project is completed. MAC is expected to meet with FAA Headquarters officials this week in Washington to discuss the option of dividing the dike project into a number of elements, with FAA being asked to fund $5 million from the AIP FY 05 discretionary fund for the initial (sub-drain) component of the overall project. MAC staff anticipate that the environmental work for this project will be completed in time for a September 2005 FAA grant. If FAA funds this initial step and the Congressional Delegation is successful in including this project in the final WRDA bill, the MAC Commission can defer until next year deciding whether to press for WRDA/COE funding for actual construction of the dike project at a 65 percent Federal share or to seek a second (and a third) annual FAA grant. In addition, discussions are being held with the headquarters staff of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), now part of the Department of Homeland Security, in an effort to avoid adding a $4 million cost to the dike project to meet toughened FEMA flooding standards. 3. FY 05 DHS Appropriations Bill Adds Some Funds for Airport In-Line EDS Installations But MSP Installation Likely Not to Get Funded This Year Members of Congress will begin meeting soon to write a final version of the FY 05 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which passed the Senate on September 14 (S. 2537). The House passed its version of the measure (H.R. 4567) on June 18. That legislation provides TSA funding, including funds for aviation security grants. The Senate amended the bill to include $325 million in grants to certain airport proprietors for installation of explosive detection systems (EDS) -- $75 million more than the Bush Administration requested and $56 million above the House-passed amount. However, this level will only fund the LOI projects at the eight already-approved airports. 3

17 If enacted into law, a provision in the Senate version of the bill could provide additional funding for EDS installation. Specifically, the bill would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO formerly the General Accounting Office) to conduct a review of air carrier security costs. If the review concludes that air carriers owe the Federal Government additional revenue from security fees, any additional funds collected from the airlines in FY 05 would be used to pay for security modifications, including Letters of Intent (LOIs) from TSA at commercial service airports. The Senate bill does not endorse the Administration s proposal to reduce the Federal share for LOIs issued for EDS installation from 90 percent to 75 percent for larger airports. It also does not change the allocation formula contained in the recent FAA Reauthorization Act ( Vision 100 ) that requires a portion of the funding to go to medium hub and smaller airports. TSA purchases and maintains explosive detection equipment located at airports. The Senate bill provides $210 million for EDS/explosive trace detection (ETD) system procurement, a figure that is nearly $60 million more than the Administration requested and $40 million more than the amount included in the House version of the bill. The Senate bill also includes approximately $175 million for EDS/ETD maintenance about $100 million more than last year s level and approximately $10 million more than the House approved. From all TSA reports, MSP is not near the top of TSA s list of airports where in-line EDS installations are needed soon. Because the in-lobby operation at MSP does not create extensive passenger delays, TSA will focus its limited grant funds on other airports this year. 4. House and Senate Aviation Committees Have Proposals for Comprehensive 9/11 Commission Anti-Terrorism Package As you know, the 9/11 Commission made extensive recommendations to improve aviation and transportation security. A listing of the Commission s recommendations is enclosed. A whole panoply of Congressional committees Intelligence, Governmental Affairs, Infrastructure have been holding hearings and developing legislation to respond to the Commission s recommendations.. Whether these various bills move independently or, as suggested by House Speaker Hastert, are combined into an omnibus bill is unknown. However, it is unlikely that the 108 th Congress will adjourn without some action on these important topics. The House Aviation Subcommittee and the Senate Commerce Committee (S. 2393) have each approved aviation security bills to respond to the Commission s recommendations. 4

18 The primary areas of Congressional interest are listed below; the list also accurately reflects the weaknesses Congress sees in today s airport security systems: More In-Line EDS Installations at Airports: House and Senate bills would authorize additional Federal funding ($150 million annually for three fiscal years) for more in-line EDS installations at more U.S. airports. The stumbling block continues to be the opposition of the President s Office of Management and Budget to high levels of expenditures for this purpose. Airport Perimeter Security: Both House and Senate bills authorize additional resources with which to improve the security of airport perimeters. The Senate bill also urges greater Federal research against attacks by MANPADS, the over-the-shoulder rockets that could threaten civilian aircraft from the perimeter of airports. The House bill would also require TSA to report on the feasibility of physically screening all individuals (airport workers, etc.) prior to their entering secure areas. Explosive Detection At Screening Checkpoints: Federal funds are authorized for accelerated research and development for technology that could detect the presence of plastic explosive materials during the passenger screening process. (Today s metal detectors do not detect plastic explosives.) Air Cargo Security: Both House and Senate bills require accelerated R & D for screening large containers shipped as air cargo. The Senate bill would require companies that transport air cargo to physically screen all people on all aircraft and their baggage. At this time it is unclear whether these aviation-specific provisions will be included in overall security legislation to be developed by the Congress. More broadly, there is growing criticism within the Congress that civil aviation security has received Federal resources equal to $9 per air traveler while other transportation modes have received far less in Federal funds. 5. Executive Branch Issues of Potential Concern to MAC The U.S. Department of Transportation and its Federal Aviation Administration are currently addressing important policy issues that, while having no legislative component, may have important long-term ramifications for MAC. 5

19 TSA Opt-Out Program For Private Security Screeners: Under the Aviation Safety and Transportation Security Act of 2001, commercial service airports that currently have TSA/Federal screeners may choose to opt out of the Federal employee system and to have TSA select a private screening company to handle the security functions at those airports. In June TSA released initial guidance information for airport proprietors to consider in making their decisions. The material ignores the important issue of potential airport financial exposure if a private screener were to be negligent and to allow terrorist activity to occur at or beyond the screening point. Many airports are weighing the pros and cons of the private screener option; an airport s application to TSA for a private screener force can be submitted at any time after November 19, Competition Plan Streamlining: The 2000 statutory requirement for certain hub airports (including MSP) to regularly submit reports to DOT and FAA indicating how their leases and policies enhance competition between airlines has been criticized by some airports for its complexity and high cost of preparation. The Federal agencies are about to announce a streamlining of current competition plan requirements so as to reduce the costs of report preparation by airport proprietors. Congestion Management O Hare and LaGuardia, etc.: Air passenger demand has returned to pre-9/11 levels at many hub airports. Excessive demand for runway access at O Hare International Airport has required DOT/FAA to exercise new authority included in last year s Vision 100 legislation to require air carriers to reduce some schedules. DOT/FAA are studying whether airfield congestion at O Hare and New York s LaGuardia Airport (and possibly other airports) should be reduced by allocating runway access to airlines based on some market pricing mechanism. DOT s policy decision for LaGuardia is expected next year. DOT s decision could eventually affect many U.S. hub airports in situations where aircraft demand exceeds runway capacity either throughout the day or only during peak hours. Enclosure FOR INFORMATION ONLY 6

20 &200,66,21$9,$7,216(&85,7<5(&200(1'$7,216 7KH&RPPLVVLRQLQFOXGHGPDQ\DYLDWLRQVSHFLILFUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVLQWKHLU 5HSRUWDQG([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\ &RPPLVVLRQ5HSRUW5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV 3ODQQLQJ 5HSRUW5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV 7KH86JRYHUQPHQWVKRXOG Identify and evaluate the transportation assets that need to be protected, Set risk-based priorities for defending them, Select the most practical and cost-effective ways of doing so, and Develop a plan, budget, and funding to implement the effort. The plan should assign roles and missions to the relevant authorities (federal, state, regional, and local) and to private stakeholders. /D\HUHG6HFXULW\$SSURDFK 5HSRUW5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV 7KH76$PXVWKDYHPXOWLSOHOD\HUVRIVHFXULW\LQSODFH WRGHIHDWWKHPRUHSODXVLEOHDQGGDQJHURXVIRUPVRIDWWDFNDJDLQVWSXEOLF WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ 3UHVFUHHQLQJ 5HSRUW5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV Improved use of no-fly and automatic selectee lists should not be delayed while the argument about a successor to CAPPS continues. This screening function should be performed by the TSA, and it should utilize the larger set of watch lists maintained by the federal government. Air carriers should be required to supply the information needed to test and implement this new system. ([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ,QDYLDWLRQSUHYHQWDUJXPHQWVDERXWD QHZFRPSXWHUL]HGSURILOLQJV\VWHPIURPGHOD\LQJYLWDOLPSURYHPHQWVLQWKH³QR IO\ DQG³DXWRPDWLFVHOHFWHH OLVWV

21 %LRPHWULFV ([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV Address problems of screening people with biometric identifiers across agencies and governments, including our border and transportation systems, by designing a comprehensive screening system that addresses common problems and sets common standards. As standards spread, this necessary and ambitious effort could dramatically strengthen the world s ability to intercept individuals who could pose catastrophic threats. 3DVVHQJHU%DJJDJHDQG&DUJR6FUHHQLQJ 5HSRUW5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ The TSA and the Congress must give priority attention to improving the ability of screening checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers. As a start, each individual selected for special screening should be screened for explosives. Further, the TSA should conduct a human factors study, a method often used in the private sector, to understand problems in screener performance and set attainable objectives for individual screeners and for the checkpoints where screening takes place. The TSA should expedite the installation of advanced (in-line) baggage-screening equipment. Because the aviation industry will derive substantial benefits from this deployment, it should pay a fair share of the costs. The TSA should require that every passenger aircraft carrying cargo must deploy at least one hardened container to carry any suspect cargo. TSA also needs to intensify its efforts to identify, track, and appropriately screen potentially dangerous cargo in both the aviation and maritime sectors.

22 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Management & Operations Committee Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director Planning and Environment ( ) MSP 2020 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DATE: September 30, 2004 At the Commission meeting on September 27, 2004 representatives of Northwest Airlines presented a three-phase development plan for MSP, covering the period from 2004 to This development is intended as a followon to airfield and terminal development nearing completion, and will maximize the potential of MSP through Phase 1 of the plan focuses on development of the Humphrey Terminal, expanding it from 8 to 16 gates (construction of 2 of these gates has been previously approved by the Commission) and moving all non-sky Team airlines to the Humphrey Terminal. This move is targeted for June, Once this move has been completed, interior renovations would be undertaken at the Lindbergh Terminal to upgrade passenger checkin, security and baggage claim areas. Phase 2 is contemplated for 2010 and proposes growth at the Lindbergh Terminal with the construction of 15 gates on Concourse H (an extension of the G Concourse); this extension would require a people mover to minimize walking distances. The people mover would run along the roof of the concourses. Phase 3, in the 2015 to 2020 period, would add 10 more gates to Concourse H, allow for 9 additional regional jet gates on the C Concourse and add 4 gates at the Humphrey Terminal. An airport hotel is proposed for the period, to be located at the east end of the Lindbergh Terminal parking ramps; the specific timing of construction is dependent on economic justification. While Phase 2 and 3 are identified as 2010 and , timing of development can be adjusted to reflect then current conditions, whether positive or negative. As such, the goal of the Commission s review process should be conceptual approval of the overall plan, but the focus should be on those steps required for implementation of Phase 1 by The September Commission action recognized this by providing staff more specific authority regarding Phase 1. The following is an overview of issues relevant to Committee review of the proposed development plan. This list is not intended to be exhaustive but to provide the basis for further Committee discussion. Planning and Environment Committee ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Review overall development concept Review and confirm underlying forecast and facility assumptions Review cost estimates for Phase 1 development Begin preliminary design on Humphrey expansion, including discussions with all affected parties Begin Federal/State/Local approval process

23 Management and Operations Committee ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Review Airline Lease provisions and the Humphrey Terminal Ordinance and Operating Procedures for potential changes caused by Phase 1 development Identify and review alternatives to equalize rents between the Lindbergh and Humphrey Terminals, including discussions with all affected parties Identify all operating costs associated with Phase 1 development Review and identify impacts on the MSP Competition Plan Identify concessions, parking, auto rental and other ground transportation impacts Finance Committee ¾ Review underlying financing assumptions used by NWA ¾ Develop plan of finance for Phase 1 ¾ Identify impacts of development on operating budget This is an informational item only; no Committee action is requested.