Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Noise Complaints topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Des Moines citizens committee sets process to log and respond to airport noise complaints
Summary
The Des Moines City citizens committee voted to create a central intake and response workflow for resident complaints about airport noise, direct staff to prepare standard responses and assign leads to analyze noise data.
The Des Moines City citizens committee voted to formalize how it will receive and respond to resident complaints about airport noise and other issues, including use of a committee email account, a standing agenda item to review complaints and staff-prepared “canned” responses.
The move comes after committee members said they had recently received two citizen complaints and discussed recurring noise concerns tied to flight operations. Rebecca (staff member) told the committee that complaints should be routed through a central committee email so staff can forward them and record responses in the public record. “Our suggestion is either for you guys to discuss them here for a response… we would suggest the response to come back through staff so that it's recorded through the public record,” Rebecca said.
The committee agreed to a workflow: complaints submitted to the central mailbox will be compiled by staff and provided to committee members in packet form for the next meeting; the committee will keep a standing agenda item to sort and prioritize incoming complaints; staff will prepare short acknowledgement replies to residents stating the complaint has been received and explaining next steps; and the committee will write template responses for common complaint types that staff can personalize.
Rebecca said the committee can add value by validating resident observations with noise-monitor data and by directing residents to official complaint portals run by the Federal Aviation Administration and the port. She told members the port maintains an online noise site with monitors and a public complaint map. “The data is all there. You just have to know how to analyze the data,” she said, adding that the publicly posted noise data can be delayed by about two weeks.
The committee discussed operational details and workload: Rebecca estimated roughly 20 noise complaints per month in summer, with fewer in winter, and recommended assigning leads for different complaint types so staff and members can triage issues. Jeff (committee member) and Rebecca agreed to draft a first version of the standard acknowledgement and a set of template replies; the committee directed staff to collect complaints into a single packet (PDF) for meetings so the group does not lose track of items that arrive “dribbling in.”
Members also discussed how to distinguish complaints that deserve deeper technical analysis from those that are primarily expressions of frustration. The committee agreed to develop internal criteria for escalation and to ensure residents’ complaints are logged through the FAA and port sites so they appear in official datasets.
The committee added the following operational steps to its action list: create and publicize a central committee email; staff compiles complaints into meeting packets; staff to prepare short acknowledgement replies; Jeff and Rebecca to draft template responses and to analyze noise-monitor data when needed; and a standing agenda item to review incoming complaints each meeting.
The committee planned to follow up at its next meeting on implementation details and to consider whether to request additional noise monitors from the port.
