Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - 11/08/2007 APPROVED MINUTES FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2007 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Heritage Rooms 1 & 2 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rick King, Vice-Chair Jeff Larsen, Commissioners: Joe Harris, Greg McKewan, Mark Michelson, Kurt Schendel and Brad Stratton (left at 7:35 p.m. and returned at 8:40 p.m.) COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None VISITORS: Jack Lanners, Chairman of the Metropolitan Airports Commission Scott Skramstad, MAC Chad Leqve, MAC STAFF: Scott Neal, City Manager Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Carol Pelzel, City Recorder I. CALL TO ORDER Chair King called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA King asked that they add an item under V. Discussion Items ahead of the guest speaker titled Flying Cloud Operator of the Year Award. MOTION: Michelson moved, seconded by Stratton, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried, 7-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 13, 2007 Minutes MOTION: Schendel moved, seconded by Michelson, to approve the September 13, 2007 minutes as presented. Motion carried 7-0. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 2 V. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Flying Cloud Operator of the Year Award King explained that for the past several years the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) presents an award to Flying Cloud’s operator of the year. The recipient is selected by MAC and given to the airport user who demonstrates a high level of compliance to the voluntary measures. Since that voluntary noise abatement is in the City’s agreement with MAC, King said it seemed appropriate that this Commission participate in the actual award presentation. King said it gives him great pleasure to present this year’s award to Modern Avionics which is owned by Kurt Schendel, a member of this Commission. King presented the award to Schendel and expressed the Commission’s and City’s appreciation to Modern Avionics for their contribution to the on-going success of the noise abatement program. III. PUBLIC COMMENT Gary Demee, 9425 Shetland Road, explained that he is a past member of the Flying Cloud Airports Commission. He said that there appears to be some misinformation coming from this Commission regarding the Flying Cloud Airport expansion. The information regarding the cost benefit of expanding Flying Cloud Airport is not accurate. Demee said the expansion would reduce property values, reduce standard of living and cause a loss of millions of dollars per year in property tax, school funding and other revenues from land taken by MAC. The expansion would also result in the loss of revenue to the homebuilders, appliance dealers and related home finishing retailers. Demee said he is not so sure that extending a runway will generate more revenue for the airport. Ninety percent of the planes there now can continue to use the existing runway. He questioned why they should spend additional money on a public encroachment project when the airport is running at 33 percent of capacity. Lauren Neuman, 8903 Sylvan Ridge, asked that the MAC Commissioners make themselves more readily available to the public for dialogue. She asked that this evening’s guest speaker, Jack Lanners, address this in his presentation. Neuman explained that a couple of months ago a MAC representative was quoted as having said that MAC needs $12 million in resources to pay for the expansion of the runway at Flying Cloud and was hoping to obtain 20 percent from private funds. She asked if MAC has obtained private funding and if so, how much and who was the contributor. Neuman pointed out that there was an article in the local newspaper that stated that the runway expansion is to accommodate new and quieter jets. She said she feels there is some misinformation going out. The EIS document refers to 25 aircraft that cannot effectively use the airport prior to the expansion but can after the expansion. She pointed out that the larger business jets are just as loud and even louder. Neuman said that when they refer to newer and quieter business jets she is not sure what that is. Indications in the EIS are that bigger business jets are not quieter. If they are FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 3 referencing VLJ’s, it is her understanding that VLJ’s do not need a 5,000-foot runway. Neuman said she feels there is misinformation being given to the public. The facts are in the EIS. Neuman questioned why the expansion is being put in place for newer and quieter jets when factual information is contrary to that spin. The EIS states that runway improvements will decrease air traffic congestion and create increased efficiencies for Flying Cloud Airport customers. Runway improvements appear to be for larger business jets and traffic congestion or delays do not appear to be an issue at Flying Cloud. Neuman suggested that there be some changes made to either the information being provided to the public or in the EIS. Some of the information being provided is either incorrect or needs to be clarified. Vicky Pellar-Price, 16893 Bainbridge Drive, said it is important to get community input. She said that in past discussions with some MAC representatives she was told that they don’t get the information until the FAA notifies them. She pointed out that the Department of Homeland Security has a new rule that would require private aircraft arriving in the U.S. from a foreign port or departing the U.S. are required to transmit to customs and border protection an advance electronic transmission regarding each individual traveling on board the aircraft. This will allow them to track terrorist. Pellar-Price said that when you have larger planes those planes would be global. There will be more access into Flying Cloud with those kinds of situations. There will be additional risks to security as larger planes use Flying Cloud. She presented several articles regarding terrorist threats. She also pointed out that there has been a reauthorization of the Federal Administration Authorization Bill that includes $10 million per year for the study of environmental issues including noise. Community activist do not get one dime of this money. Pellar-Price said she has been in contact with someone from the Air Quality Research Center at U.C. Davis and she has been invited to one of their conferences. She said she found it interesting that it was the University having these conferences and that they have invited representatives from the EPA, FAA, NASA, etc. Noise is a problem and it has to be addressed. She suggested that someone from this Commission attend one of these conferences. Pellar-Price said she also has information from Virginia Tech regarding home values. It has been shown that when it is disclosed that a home is around an airport, the home value falls three percent. This is something that needs to be looked at. She said she would also like to see things handled more truthfully. Jerry Pitzrick, 9322 Overlook Trail, said he is a member of the Eden Prairie Planning Commission and lives about 1.5 miles from the airport. Currently, the small jets fly over his house. He anticipates that with the expansion of the runway, the landing pattern will expand versus them maintaining the existing landing pattern. He asked if the whole pattern would be expanded out and have a greater impact on the community. Also, there has been a lot of discussion about extending Prospect Road for access to Hennepin Village. All of the options identified were from Eden Prairie Road to the west. He said he asked why they didn’t look at any options going towards the north across MAC property. Pitzrick said he was told MAC would not consider that. This is a response they did not want to hear. Citizens need to understand the information given and if MAC did not want to allow the extension of Prospect Road on their property, he would hope they would a better neighbor in the future. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 4 Bill Ruff, 11798 Tanglewood Drive, explained that he lives in a residential neighborhood about one mile east of the airport. He said Flying Cloud Airport is not a very good neighbor. On a regular basis, he hears airplanes that come in around 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. and at night. Ruff said there is a website that he sends in complaints regularly. To date, he has not received any response to his complaints. He said if you have somebody who is a bad neighbor you would not be endorsing expansion for that neighbor. Longer runways will bring in louder planes that will continue to violate the voluntary agreement on noise abatement. Ruff said it was his understanding that takeoffs could not head towards the Minnesota River because they would disturb the eagles nests. He said he can’t understand how an expansion of the airport would adversely affect eagles and not have the same affect on the residents of Eden Prairie. He asked why the eagles get priority over Eden Prairie residents and why expand the runways for an organization that fails to follow their own noise abatement agreement. Ruff said if they were to redevelop that site into residential or mixed use, additional tax revenue would be generated for many years. With the airport, they are losing income for multiple years to come. The airport will not go away but he does not see the logic of continuing an expansion of an airport that will continue to lose money for the City. Floyd Hagen, 15721 Cedar Ridge Road, said he lives north of the airport. Hagen presented the Commission with historical information regarding the airport stating that in the early 1970’s, MAC agreed never to expand again and now they are looking at expanding. Hagen said Eden Prairie doesn’t have farmland anymore. With all of this development and with people building and buying homes, they had the assurance from MAC that the airport would not expand and that it would remain the same. Now it is inconceivable that people are being put at risk for increased noise levels and decreased property values for an expansion that is not necessary. Hagen said he couldn’t think of a reason why any resident of Eden Prairie would benefit from the expansion. He said he is not against the operation of the airport but of the expansion and he does not want major jets coming into the airport. Chris Kramer, 17295 Acorn Ridge, thanked both the Commission and MAC for allowing the public to be heard this evening. He asked for clarification from MAC as to the offer made to MAC from the City of Eden Prairie to assist MAC in adding sewer and water to the airport. Kramer said he was not aware that MAC formally declined that offer. Kramer said there was also talk about two new aircraft using the new runway and other aircraft becoming available. He said it is his understanding that existing aircraft do have limitations placed on how far they can fly because they can’t carry enough fuel when departing from Flying Cloud. Longer runways will allow those aircraft to carry more fuel. Kramer indicated that the expansion appears to be motivated by financial reasons and not just an expansion for two new aircraft. He also pointed out that the comment was made that the main reason for the expansion is so that planes there today can operate safely and under all weather conditions. He said he was not aware that they found safety issues at the airport that prevented airplanes from taking off safely. It can make them operate safer and he wanted to clarify that. Kramer said he believes the Eden Prairie Police Department would like to receive telephone calls if more than one gate is open at the airport. He said he would like FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 5 clarified what the Police want when violations are seen. In discussing MAC’s CIP for 2008- 2014, it was mentioned that in 2008 they are looking at a runway expansion for about $900,000. This expansion is the lengthening of one runway. In 2009 they are looking at hangar removal and additional remodeling on the southern building area. Kramer said he believes that the existing hangars on the north side of the airport will stay in tact and not be removed. It is his understanding that the hangars to be removed are the ones aligning Highway 212. Kramer asked for a clarification of whether or not this is correct and he would like clarified that the hangars facing the park will actually be removed. Kramer explained that he also has concerns with the many tenants MAC has in terms of financing capital improvements. He is not convinced that new buildings on the south side will generate the revenue that the airport needs. He questioned if MAC could find better uses for those funds. Judy Gentry, 9776 Pickett Drive, said she feels she represents some of the residents living in Hennepin Village. Gentry read a letter that was sent to the City Council explaining that she did not expect the airport to expand allowing larger airplanes causing noise and pollution to the air. She said that they have to weigh how residents feel along with business plans. She knows that business and financial matters are very important. Gentry said she believes the City can represent the citizens and see how they will be harmed by this expansion. Expansion will cause additional pollution and affect the value of their homes. She questioned how this expansion would help the business community. She also asked if this is an east/west expansion that will go over Hennepin Village. Gentry explained that she is now awaken early in the morning and at 11:30 P.M. by older planes flying over. She is not against the airport and she moved there knowing there was an airport. Gentry questioned how they would raise the $20 million for the expansion and she asked if it was coming from taxes. If the expansion is being paid by taxes, that bothers her. She is concerned that her tax dollars are going for more pollution and noise while her home value goes down. King closed the public comment period and expressed his appreciation to those who took the time to come to this meeting and to express their concerns. He also thanked their guest speaker, Jack Lanners, for taking the time to brief the Commission on what is happening around the MAC system and specifically at the reliever airports including Flying Cloud. V. B. Guest Speaker – Jack Lanners, Chairman of the Metropolitan Airports Commission Lanners explained that there are a lot of things going on with MAC and everything that has been brought up needs to be answered. Lanners indicated that he would not be answering all of the questions asked this evening. There are conflicting comments and they will eventually answer all of the questions that have been posed. Lanners said he has been around for about six years and has helped with commercial real estate in leasing of the stores at the Lindberg Terminal. These stores provide revenue to MAC and help make the airport more competitive. MAC needs to be FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 6 competitive on a national and global basis as things change. Lanners said he got involved with the reliever airports task force and did an analysis of six airport reliever systems. MAC has 15 Commissioners that represent greater Minnesota and he has been on the Commission for approximately one and one-half years. Lanners explained that in looking at the six-reliever airports they saw some positive things. There were also a lot of things that were back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. They went through a process of developing a new ordinance program to identify reliever systems. Lanners explained why the reliever system exists and explained that the economics is a driver of airport business. He reported that traffic at MSP is down right now. Having a new runway at MSP gives the potential for growth in that area and they do expect growth. Lanners further explained that airport capacity is measurable only to the extent if you had 60 percent of your take off and landing capacity you should plan new runways or a new airport. Any growth above that you start to cap out. MAC does have a long-term plan for capacity. They need to focus on their facilities to modernize them and to improve st safety by bringing them into the 21 century. All of this helps the reliever system and the community they are in. If they develop or redevelop they need to fit the community they are in and they need to have standards to make the community proud of what they see. Lanners reported that they have received feedback from tenants and residents surrounding the area and they are looking at those comments proactively and trying to find the best solutions. They have asked themselves what they can do to make it better. They are looking for proactive feedback to make it better while keeping in mind that the airport system’s mission is to promote safe, efficient use of the airport system and to promote aviation. Operations are down significantly and when you have smaller operations you have to believe that the noise levels are less. Lanners pointed out that Flying Cloud has worked on improving their facilities including landscaping and security lighting and that was a result of input from various groups. Flying Cloud is also working to identify problems with night flights or early morning flights. He said they need to continue to work on that and try to find the best solutions at the same time working with the agreement MAC has with the City. Lanners explained MAC’s revenue is derived from tenants and comes from businesses and parking. There is no tax. MAC is one of the only transportation systems in Minnesota that is self-sufficient. Lanners briefly reviewed how the Commission operates and explained that the ordinance adopted will help bring the standards of the reliever airports up. Lanners said when he became Chairman of the Commission there were some big issues on the table including some organizations in bankruptcy as well as two major noise lawsuits along with a class action lawsuit. They got together to discuss the solutions and asked what they needed to do for the long term to make sure MSP is competitive. MAC worked with the airlines and was able to figure things out. They now have a strong service out of the Twin Cities along with good strong competition. Lanners further explained that they are also working on attracting new carriers. He said that MAC continues to work with people to find the most appropriate resolutions. They FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 7 welcome proactive ideas and comments that deal with the issues in the future as opposed to broad based acquisitions and dwelling on the past. Lanners said he has found MAC staff to be proactive and very capable. King asked Lanners to comment on the earlier question regarding private funding for the airport or the funding scenario for the airport. King said it might take some research to answer the question regarding the traffic patterns and take-off directions. He indicated that City staff may be able to answer the question regarding funding for water and sewer at Flying Cloud. King said there was also some discussion regarding the CIP and he asked when MAC would be approving the CIP. There are funding sources in the CIP and some of those numbers indicate alternate funding. Lanners responded that MAC has officially declined the City’s participation for the installation of sewer and water at Flying Cloud. King pointed out that sewer and water is in the CIP for 2008. Lanners said they anticipate doing the project in 2008 without the City’s assistance. The City’s offer was not monetary but an offer to allow MAC to issue bonds under the City’s name. Currently, MAC’s bonding rates are better than the City’s. The CIP has the sewer and water project in it for 2008 with a short runway extension occurring in 2008 and the main runway extension at Flying Cloud to 5,000 feet in 2009. Lanners stated that not all of the CIP is necessarily funded but the projects need to be in the plan for planning purposes. Their goal and objective is to obtain federal aviation funds, MNDOT aeronautic funds or other public/private partnerships that drive the economics. He explained that MAC is focusing on non-aeronautical development of airport property that doesn’t tie in strongly to airport use but could possibly tie into the City as an amenity. King asked if MAC’s CIP has been approved or if it will be approved in the future. Lanners responded that it has not been approved but should be approved in December along with the 2008 Budget. Michelson stated that non-aeronautical development was planned in Anoka and he asked if that has gone anywhere. Lanners said they are working on it. They have an RFP out for a 20-acre parcel in Anoka and are expecting those back shortly. Obviously, development depends on the parcel and the community. MAC wants to work with the community for what they want to see and have the need for. Michelson also asked if Lanners said MAC is self-sufficient. It is his understanding that they receive funds from Federal grants and from the FAA. Lanners explained that those funds are derived from revenue that comes from the aeronautics business. Michelson pointed out that 15 percent to 20 percent comes out of the General Fund, which is funded by the taxpayers. Lanners said he disagrees. The AIP funding is 100 percent aeronautical. Leqve pointed out that the FAA funding encompasses more than airports. Neuman said she disagrees that MAC is self-sufficient. Flying Cloud receives funds from the FAA directly. They receive funding from the Federal Government. Lanners responded that that money is derived from the airports. Neuman explained that the FAA gets money from her who FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 8 pays taxes and fees when she flies. MAC receives money from the FAA to run the airports and that money comes from the public. Michelson said that MAC consistently says they are self-sufficient but they do rely heavily on taxes that come from the Federal Government. MAC can consider that part of their self-sufficiency but it is tax money. Lanners indicated that funding comes from user fees. Michelson explained that the GA gives only about two to three percent to the Aviation Trust Fund. General aviation relies on the General Fund from taxpayers to cover any shortfall in the Aviation Trust Fund. Michelson asked if the Mission Statement of MAC should be changed to include something for the residents of Minnesota instead of airports and aviation community. He asked how that Mission Statement could be changed. Leqve explained that when MAC goes through their budget process each year they set their goals. As an organization they are striving for certain things like a competitive environment, maintaining service, safety, etc. Leqve said they have staff devoted to dealing with noise issues. Every complaint received is researched and the tail number of the airplane is obtained and a letter is sent to the operator. When the operator receives the letter they call MAC and a dialogue is started. He further explained that when they talk about airport noise, the issue translates to the reliever airports as well. There is no silver bullet to solve the noise issue. MAC has the authority to levy taxes but they have not done so. MAC funds their operation through a ticket tax. Lanners said that for the public attending this meeting not to acknowledge the improvements that have been made to Flying Cloud is disappointing. He indicated that he would like proactive feedback as to how they can do things better. Michelson explained that the public is proactively talking about things. This community has been against the expansion of Flying Cloud since the early 1970’s and they are not making much headway. That seems to be because MAC is not listening to them. MAC continues to make their plans and moves forward. MAC does a wonderful job in following their mission statement. Michelson said that maybe their mission statement is wrong. He suggested that their mission statement take into account the residents surrounding these reliever airports. Michelson said he would like to see Flying Cloud moved out of the community and that it be located in a less heavily populated area. He suggested that they think out of the box and rewrite their mission statement. Lanners explained that they have an agreement with the community and it is his job to make sure that they live by it. They do what they can to try to alleviate any problems that exist. Larsen indicated that there have been discussions in the past at other forums about responses they have received from business owners interested in increasing hangar capacity and expanding runways on a business basis. He asked if MAC has received a lot of interest from business owners or FBO’s that want to expand. Lanners said he could not provide Larsen with exact numbers but there at least ten major companies FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 9 that operate out of Flying Cloud. Costs increase when they have to make additional stops to refuel. A longer runway would be extremely beneficial to a number of businesses that operate out of Flying Cloud. With regard to development of the south building area, Lanners said that has to continue to develop. Their primary focus is to have a usable 5,000-foot runway that attracts more businesses. That will drive the development of the south building area. They have received a strong demand from current FBO’s for the runway expansion. Neuman asked what research was done to show that building a longer runway would bring in businesses. When they say building a longer runway will bring in more businesses she questioned what the factual basis are for verifying this. She also asked how many businesses want the longer runway. Leqve explained that there are about 23 aircraft that already operate in and out of Flying Cloud. The statement that there will be two additional airplanes refers to new aircraft at the airport. The 23 that are currently operating at the airport are operating in a significantly diminished capacity. Those operators would much rather operate out of Flying Cloud and fill their aircraft with fuel at Flying Cloud rather than having to stop at another location to fuel to capacity. Leqve said they are talking about serving people already here and to afford them the opportunity to maximize their business potential in serving the public. Neuman said that is her very point, expanding runways to increase operation of these jets that are loud. Leqve said there have been a lot of gains made in noise reduction and noise reduction equates to the jet fleets. Leqve said he respects the argument about misinformation but to say that newer technology aircraft are louder is not correct. Neuman stated that she did not say that newer aircraft were louder but to say that expansion of the airport is to allow only new jets that will be quieter is not true. Jet noise will be worse. Leqve said it has been stated by the public that the problem with this airport expansion is that it means more jet airplanes and jet airplanes mean additional noise. In looking at the broad fleet of aircraft, this does not necessarily bear that out. Neuman responded that to say expansion means new quieter jets is not correct. McKewan said he feels there are a lot of eyesore hangars on the airport property and he asked if MAC is doing as much as possible to have the really ugly hangars removed. Harris responded that they would probably see some action on the decrepit hangars within the next three months. When sewer and water is put in place users will probably evaluate their existing hangar and along with the ordinance, there will probably be some steps taken to improve the appearance of some of the hangars. McKewan asked if MAC is doing everything possible to discourage middle of the night flying. Is there anything more they could be doing? Lanners answered that he did not think they could ever say they are doing as much as possible. They are doing a lot and there may be other things they can be doing. However, it doesn’t mean that they stop thinking or finding new solutions. McKewan said it would definitely help with relations in the community if they can discourage the non-emergency type late night flights. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 10 Demee explained that when he was on the Airports Commission in 2000 he recommended that a camera be set up that would take the picture of the tail wing of every plane that crosses the runway. This would assist them in determining who the violators are of the noise abatement. Leqve responded that right now when they receive a noise complaint, staff investigates that complaint against radar data and they also monitor radio transmissions. Skramstad reported that every noise complaint that comes to Flying Cloud goes through him. There are specific provisions that he follows with guidelines per the agreement with the City. Those provisions state that they have to use existing technology to identify operators and inform them of the voluntary restrictions. They have purchased some equipment where they can scan all radio frequencies at Flying Cloud. Skramstad also explained that not all of the noise complaints they receive are from flights out of Flying Cloud. The noise may be a result of MSP over flights or transit aircraft. They also receive a number of complaints related to Life Source flights and under the terms of the agreement those flights are allowed. McKewan asked if there are signs up at the FBO’s or at the end of the hangars that state that night flying is discouraged. He indicated that a gentle reminder might make someone think twice about taking off. Harris answered that there are signs posted at the end of the runways and entry points onto the airport. McKewan suggested that they consider putting reminders in the bills that are sent to the hangar renters. Harris said that is a good suggestion and he would look into that. Leqve said another option would be to include a link on their website. They could have a section on the web that would be dedicated to Flying Cloud that includes a reminder regarding the voluntary restrictions. Schendel said that with regard to the cosmetic view of Flying Cloud, they would like it to be as neighborly as possible. This is something they want to be very proactive in trying to clean up the airport property. He asked if there is anything this Commission or MAC could do to offer incentives to hangar owners and especially for those on Pioneer Trail. Stratton asked from a positive standpoint, if MAC sees ways that this Commission can do a better job of communicating or helping MAC communicate to the community. Lanners responded that MAC staff attends many meetings with the communities and a venue such as this is one way to assist with communication. Also, the MAC Commissioners need to get out in the communities that they represent. They are looking at more levels of communication and at some type of marketing to communities through different sources as to who their Commissioner is and how to contact them. Stratton asked if there is anything this Commission can do to help MAC reach out further to the community. Lanners explained that this meeting is a good example of what has to happen to find solutions or at least make some steps in the right direction. Lanners expressed his appreciation to the Commission for facilitating this type of meeting. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 11 Harris explained that operators at the airport are truly dedicated to this process. He also indicated that the doors to the airport are open and he encouraged anyone interested in coming out to the airport to see the operation give him a call. They will do whatever they can to help them understand the operations of the airport. Harris indicated that the operator’s goal is to serve their clients’ needs. The operators want to be good corporate citizens. Kramer pointed out that for every complaint they receive, there are probably ten to fifteen people angered. He suggested that they let the public know that they are serious about the noise problem by advertising in the Eden Prairie paper and to let the public know how they can file a noise complaint. Also, Kramer asked if tenants should be allowed to use their hangars to store equipment other than aviation equipment. He said there has also been some misinformation given regarding improving hangars. The comment was made that the expansion will improve hangars but the hangars proposed to be built will be on the south end. Nothing will be done to the hangars on the north end and those tenants won’t be forced to hook up to sewer and water. There will be restroom facilities for those tenants use. Kramer pointed out that this would not motivate people to hook up to sewer and water and they need to do something to motivate them. Tibbets said he is a resident and taxpayer of Eden Prairie and asked how he as an individual is going to benefit from the runway expansion. Lanners said he did know that Tibbet individually would benefit from it. Pitzrick said MAC is expressing significant confidence in the noise threshold and he suggested they put their money where there mouth is. He recommended that with the runway expansion, MAC agree to specific penalties with regard to the noise level and if those penalties are exceeded, they make a monetary payment to the City. And if certain noise levels are exceeded in two years, the runway extension is removed. Leqve explained that there is not a noise restriction in Flying Cloud and if they put one out they will run into some significant legal issues. They do not have a lot of restriction control. Ruff said they were told that the runway could not go over the Minnesota River Valley. Leqve responded that when they were involved in the EIS process they were working with the Fish and Wildlife and were dealing with the noise issue by trying to go south of the airport. They did have to do a study on the impact to the bald eagles. The south turn still exists and that has not changed. This was a significant point of discussion and it is still MAC’s position and the noise abatement plan includes the south turn. Pellar-Price pointed out that noise complaints have increased three-fold this year. She said she cannot imagine how bad the noise will be once operations increase. She asked what has been put in the EIS and if the number is accurate. The number of complaints is up but the number of operations is down. Pellar-Price said she worries about additional FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 12 operations with the runway expansion. Skramstad responded that the number of complaints have increased over the past two to three years. For September/October 172 complaints were received. One individual reported 88 of those complaints with five residents responsible for 50 percent of the complaints. He explained that they have also developed an Internet complaint form that makes it easier to file a complaint. King thanked Lanners for attending tonight’s meeting. He indicated that they would make an effort to get both Executive Director Hamel and MAC Commissioner Molly Sigel to attend one of the Commission’s meetings. Recess A ten-minute recess was called after which the meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m. C. 2007 Year-End Report and 2008 Goals and Work Plan King pointed out that included with the Commission’s agenda material was a draft copy of the Commission’s year-end report and 2008 goals. He asked that between now and their next meeting the Commission members review this report and provide any comments, additions/changes to Kipp. Those comments will be compiled and discussed during their January meeting. King said they also plan to invite the Zero Expansion Group to address this Commission at the January meeting. Larsen said they had discussed the possibility of looking at some reports done by other Commissions and he would like to take a look at those. Kipp said he would send out copies of other Commission’s reports to this Commission. VI. EDUCATIONAL ITEMS A. MAC Annual Airport Operations Meeting Held October 25 Harris reported that once a year MAC meets with Flying Cloud’s commercial operators to review the previous year. There were about 28 people in attendance including operators, representatives from Eden Prairie Police and Fire and air traffic control staff. There were also MAC narcotic representatives and Homeland Security representatives present. He said they discussed the annual environmental hangar inspections at the airport and talked about airfield driving along with snow and ice procedures. Larsen asked if there were any comments to the addition of lighting and signage at the airport. Harris answered that most of the signage was put in place by the meeting date and most attendees noticed. There were many favorable comments on the enhanced lighting. Larsen asked if MAC has any plans for additional signs. Harris explained that they did talk about having too much signage and repetitiveness at the gates. If they have too much signage, they are afraid they will lose the message. This is something they will look at further. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 13 VII. FINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND MAC A. Noise Complaints/Stage 2 Operations Report (September-October) Skramstad said that this evening’s report is pretty much the same as he has provided the Commission over the past several months. He distributed the complaint summary indicating that they have received more complaints in the last two months than they have since they began reporting to the Commission. Skramstad reported that for the months of September and October, they received 179 complaints from 24 total complainants. For July and August they had reported 145 complaints from 22 total complainants. Of the 179 complaints, one resident filed approximately 50 percent of them. Skramstad further reported that 133 complaints were filed for operations conducted between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. There were 44 letters sent to owners/operators notifying them that they have operated in a manner inconsistent with the voluntary restraints. One operator received ten letters, one received seven letters, one received five letters, four operators received two letters and 14 operators received one letter. There were no Stage 2 aircraft operations. VIII. NOISE ABATEMENT/AIRCRAFT INCIDENTS A. Life Link III Helicopter Flight Tracks (September-October) Skramstad reviewed with the Commission the helicopter noise complaints. Seventeen complaints were received from seven total complainants and were specifically for Life Link. Skramstad pointed out that helicopter complaints have dropped from the last time they were reported. King indicated that from time to time, he receives e-mail about noise. He stated that Skramstad has diligently tracked those complaints. The residents are interested in the depth of the way they look into the complaints and if the air traffic is flying the appropriate route or if it is on a medical emergency. King said all they can do is report what they have and talk to the pilots that are deviating from the flight plan. There is never going to be no noise. Tibbets said with regards to helicopter flights, there has been substantial change and he agrees there is only so much they can do. Taking care of the training issue was huge and he complimented the Commission on the fact that the residents were heard and that changes were made. Tibbets said he was the resident that made most of the calls regarding noise and that his location on the map was incorrect. Skramstad said he would correct the map. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES November 8, 2007 Page 14 IX. NEW BUSINESS X. OTHER BUSINESS (Various FYI Items) McKewan asked if there is anything they need to discuss regarding the Commission’s website. Kipp said he has put a number of things on the site and is working on adding and taking things off. Larsen asked if there has been any feedback regarding the site and if they are able to tell how many hits it has had. Kipp said he asked the City’s IS staff to look into the number of hits but they have not gotten back to him. Michelson said they need to get the word out to the community that they are looking for new Commission members. Kipp explained that the City’s administration has a process for doing that. King pointed out that their January and March meetings would include the current Commissioners. King pointed out that they received a copy of a letter to Kipp from the City Attorney in reference to a request from Michelson that the City Attorney address the letter received from MAC with regard to Oak Creek at Hennepin Village. Michelson said the Attorney’s letter did address his questions. King said it his intent to work with Commissioner Lanners to have more MAC representatives attend the public forums. If they are able to schedule a meeting with their MAC Commissioner they will advertise it. Tibbets said he appreciates the opportunity to talk to the MAC representatives at tonight’s meeting and he feels those representatives speak directly about facts and don’t circle around the issue. They may not tell them what they want to hear but at least they can talk to them. King said he would encourage the public to attend these meetings to address their specific questions. Tibbets asked if the EIS has been updated. Leqve said it was completed in June, 2004 and is available on MAC’s website. The following FYI items were included with the Commission’s agenda material:  Approved minutes of July 12 Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission  MAC Rates and Charges Ordinance  City Attorney Letter to Scott Kipp on August 31 Letter from MAC on Oak Creek at Hennepin Village  Various airport related articles  Next Commission meeting scheduled for January 10, 2008. Guest speaker Zero Expansion-TBD XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Motion was made by Michelson, seconded by Schendel, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried, 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.