Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - 03/12/2009 APPROVED MINUTES FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Heritage Room 1 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rick King; Vice-Chair Jeff Larsen, Commissioners: Judy Gentry, Greg McKewan, Mark Michelson, Jeff Nawrocki and Kurt Schendel (arrived at 8:25 p.m.) COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES: None VISITORS: John Ostrom, MAC Bridget Rief, MAC Chad Leqve, MAC Scott Skramstad, MAC STAFF: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Carol Pelzel, City Recorder I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chair King called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA King explained that Nawrocki will be replacing Harris on the Commission as MAC's representative. He asked that the swearing in of Nawrocki be added to the agenda. Also, under Item VII-A. Guest Speaker Brian Fox, will not be here this evening. MOTION: Michelson moved, seconded by McKewan, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried, 5-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. SWEARING IN OF NEW COMMISSIONER—JEFF NAWROCKI Kipp administered the oath of office to Jeff Nawrocki who will be replacing Joe Harris on the Commission as MAC's representative. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 2 V. MINUTES A. JANUARY 8, 2009 REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING McKewan asked that the word "when" be added to the first sentence of the first paragraph on Page 9, "... runway stating that when the tower is closed ...... Gentry questioned the meaning of the last paragraph on Page 6 with regard to the letter of intent. Kipp explained that part of the Final Agreement between the City and MAC talks about voluntary noise abatement. Part of the process is to go to the businesses and pilots and ask them to sign a letter of intent to abide by that voluntary agreement. They are acknowledging that it is voluntary but will do their best to follow that agreement. The Commission agreed that the fifth sentence of that paragraph should read"They would like the letter of intent to address not flying between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m." MOTION: Larsen moved, seconded by Gentry, to approve the January 8, 2009, regular meeting minutes as corrected. Motion carried, 4-0-2 with King and Nawrocki abstaining because of absence from that meeting. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM King introduced John Ostrom from MAC stating that Ostrom is responsible for the wildlife management program for MAC and is the Chair of the Bird Strike Committee USA. Ostrom explained that this evening he will review the history of the problems of bird strikes for the various airports and will present an overview of MAC's Wildlife Hazard Management Programs. He reported that the first powered flight occurred in 1903 and the first reported bird strike was in 1905 with the first bird strike fatality occurring in 1912. Ostrom reviewed the various bird strike incidents occurring throughout the years including the recent bird strike incident resulting in a plane landing on the Hudson River. He also reviewed the worldwide aviation financial losses due to bird strikes. Ostrom explained that wildlife strikes have become an increasing problem for aviation because there is an increase in population of many wildlife species that are hazardous to aviation and because of the adaptation of wildlife to urban settings. He further explained that another reason for the increase is because of increased air traffic. Also, they have faster, quieter two-engine jet aircraft and birds and aircraft are fighting for airspace in crowded skies. They also have increased liability issues with wildlife strikes. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 3 Ostrom reviewed the mission of the Bird Strike Committee USA stating that they are dedicated to providing leadership to the aviation wildlife hazard management community through the exchange of information, training, education and promotion of research and development to reduce the threat of wildlife hazards to aircraft operations. Ostrom reviewed the wildlife strike incidents at MSP reporting that there were 591strikes from 1990 to 2007 and 11 strikes at Flying Cloud for that same time period. He reviewed Flying Cloud wildlife activity for 2008 indicating the removal of various species and the harassment of others. He explained that a Wildlife Hazard Assessment is required when an air carrier aircraft experiences multiple wildlife strikes; an air carrier aircraft experiences substantial damage from striking wildlife; an air carrier aircraft experiences an engine ingestion of wildlife; or wildlife of a size, or in numbers capable of causing an event. The FAA requires a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to provide for the authority for implementation of the Plan; priorities for habitat modification; local, state and federal permits; resources; procedures; review and evaluation; and, training. In response to a question from Leqve, Ostrom explained that if a bird strike occurs within three miles of an airport, the strike is reported to that airport. Ostrom said it is extremely important that strikes are reported because of the limited number of dollars they have, the reports provide them with the necessary information to target those dollars. Ostrom reviewed the species specific population management and the various permits required. He provided the Commission with a sample of the equipment used to implement the Wildlife Management Program including habitat modification, exclusion, harassment, pyrotechnics, and capture. Kipp asked what other things are being done at Flying Cloud to manage the bird strikes. Nawrocki responded that the biggest issue they have is seasonal. Their maintenance crew does communicate with the tower and if necessary, staff will come back in the evening to harass water fowl. King asked if there are other weak spots in the programs at Flying Cloud that should be looked at and are there things they are not doing at Flying Cloud that they should be doing. Kipp reported that part of the Pioneer Trail road improvement project was the infiltration of ponds to handle storm water and that water will seep into the ground in a 24-hour period. Kipp said the City did work with MAC on that project. Gentry said a coyote had been spotted outside of the airport fencing. She asked if everything within the fence is considered the airport. Nawrocki answered that they also have airport property outside of the fence. Ostrom explained that they do look at activities up to two miles outside of airport property. They don't want open water, landfills or large parking lots around the airport to allow gulls to habitat. They do not want anything that would attract wildlife close to the airport and they try to avoid FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 4 animals living on airport property. Ostrom said he believes air strikes are being under reported around the country and this makes it difficult to put resources where they need to be. In response to King's question about whether or not there are additional things that could be done at Flying Cloud, Ostrom said he is not sure there is any one thing but there are things they could probably improve on. Kipp asked if this presentation has been made to the businesses located at the airport. Ostrom said they have not. Nawrocki said this information has been discussed up at their meetings with the operators. Ostrom said they do point count surveys where they go to each point for three minutes and identify the wildlife in that area. They also do a driving survey identifying wildlife. This allows them to see various trends and is very helpful information. He stated that one of the messages they want to send to the aviation community is that flying is still the safest way to travel and anything they can do to mitigate hazards is part of the business. B. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT FCM King introduced Bridget Rief with MAC and stated that she would be providing the Commission with an update on MAC's capital improvements at Flying Cloud. Rief reported that she works in airport development for MAC and is responsible for updating the long-term comprehensive plan this year for Flying Cloud, St. Paul and Anoka. Rief said she would review the process for adopting the comprehensive plans and will talk about 2009 construction at Flying Cloud. She explained that last year they began the airports improvement program by extending the north parallel runway at Flying Cloud to 3,900 feet and that project was completed in November. Flying Cloud now has two runways 3,900 feet in length. Rief stated that the reason for extending the north parallel was so that when they close the south runway this summer they will have a runway to use. She reported that they have received bids for grading work and they will be looking at the construction of a new VOR navigational structure. That facility will be moved across Flying Cloud Drive to provide a new building for the FAA. The grading work will occur on the west end of Runway 10R. The grading will not require the closing of the runway or impact the approach system of the runway. Rief explained that since the runway is being extended to the west, the approach lighting towers will be moved to the west and grading work will be required. However, the lighting will not be moved in Phase L Overall, they will be grading two million yards of materials that will stay on airport property. Rief explained that Phase II will include the extension of the south runway and the widening of the runway along with the relocation of other navigational aids specific to the runway. The south runway is expected to be closed from June to November at which time they will open the 5,000 foot runway. It will be 2010 before everything is up and operational. Rief reported that in 2008 MAC received a grant from the FAA for the first phase of the runway project. MAC is scheduled to receive a discretionary grant FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 5 from the FAA for runway Phase II after bids are received on the project. She further reported that the local FAA has not given out any stimulus money and the money being distributed at this time is discretionary money. Rief said they have submitted a project involving the south hangar area for the FAA's review for possible stimulus money and that project will be ready to go should funds be offered. This project is intended to be tenant funded requiring the tenants to pay an assessment. The stimulus money would reduce that assessment. In response to a question from Michelson, Rief explained that in order to fully utilize the proposed new building area, they need to move the air traffic control tower. The FAA is not interested in a new tower and once the runway is constructed, they expect tenants to become more interested in the building area. Moving the tower will be driven by tenants for the building area. Rief briefly reviewed other proposed projects for 2009 including alleyways and a rehab project on the north side of the airport. She also stated that the next project that goes along with the runway project is the demolition of a handful of hangars. There are 11 hangars that fall within the object three area of the new runway and have to be removed. These hangars are some of the oldest hangars on the southeast side of the field and they have been working with the State Historical office since this area has been deemed a historic district. Rief said that one of the tenants in the building area decided to remove their hangar and to redevelop it without any restrictions from a historic perspective. King said that the information presented by Rief this evening will also be presented at a public meeting to be held in May. Michelson pointed out that the attendees of that meeting will want to know what is being done to address the noise issue. Rief said they know that is a concern and they will be ready to address that. Rief explained the process for updating the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan. They do an inventory and complete a forecast for based aircraft and aircraft operations. They also do a base line forecast including a high forecast and a low forecast. This range gives them a target area where they anticipate they will be in 20 years. Rief indicated that they are predicting a decrease in based aircraft from 2007 to 2025. They are also forecasting fewer operations in 2025. Rief explained that in the noise model for the last three plans they took a certain percentage of operations (for example three percent) from the tower and applied that for the development of the nighttime noise contour. This resulted in decreasing the daytime counts by a certain percentage (for example three percent). She further explained that they will still take the three percent number and put it in the nighttime model for nighttime flights but will add to the tower count so they do not decrease daytime numbers. McKewan said with the new multilaterational system, do they still need to add these numbers to the noise model since they will have more accurate counts. Rief said they like to have a year's worth of data so for this time they will have to do it this way and as FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 6 the information comes on board they will not have to adjust the numbers. King said if possible,he would like the Commission to be provided with the multilaterational numbers versus the standard MSP split. Rief said there is no question that there will be nighttime operations and they want to be as accurate as they can be. Rief said that once they have the forecast, they look at the facility to see if they are lacking in anyway. The forecast is used to track what is going on and for the noise model. They also use it for predicting the number of operations to justify any additions to the facility. They asked the tenants about navigational additions and no one had any suggestions. Rief said one of the items they are looking at deals with the north/south Runway 18/36. They are not proposing to do anything with the runway but it does have a slight deficient safety area and they need to address that. They could shorten Runway 18/36 by 58 feet or shift it to the north by 58 feet in order to address the deficiency. She indicated that at this time they are not recommending shifting the runway or extending it to make up the FAA shortage. They could justify to the FAA that shortening the runway is not an issue to the users. A 58 foot shift is minute in the safety zoning efforts. King asked if the Plan requires an EIS. Rief responded that the FAA does not know if formal environmental assessment work has to be done for the runway safety. An analysis of the Comprehensive Plan will likely identify if there are issues between the two alternatives being proposed. Assuming there are no issues and the noise contour will not change that much, they don't anticipate an EIS. However, that is something they will continue to pursue with the FAA. King said he wants to make it clear that the public meeting in May is about the work that is currently being done at the airport and not about the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Rief said she agrees and she would like to conduct the Long-Term Comp Plan meeting on a more informal basis versus a public hearing. She said she anticipates that meeting being held sometime in June. Michelson asked when they anticipate completing the north/south runway project. Rief responded that implementation for Runway 18/36 would occur in a 0 to 5 year timeframe. In 2011 reconstruction of the south end of 18/36 is anticipated and in order to do that project they would have to address the safety area deficiency. This may require environmental work and could push the project out. McKewan asked if they knew what it would cost to replace the hangars on the north end of the airport and if it would be worthwhile to pursue some stimulus funding to accomplish that work. Rief answered that in order for MAC to take on that project they would have to buy out the tenant leases which would be incredibly expensive. Most of the tenants have a ten-year lease and it would not be cost effective for MAC to do that. Some of the tenants are interested in redeveloping their hangars and they expect other tenants will be interested in doing the same. Rief said reliever airport staff is working on an aesthetic ordinance to address some of the blight that exists at all of the airports. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 7 McKewan asked if it would be possible to obtain money to work on the ends of the t- hangars. Rief explained that hangars in the MAC system are not eligible for federal money. King pointed out that once the runway project is completed they will probably see more interest in improving hangars and that will be driven by the people who are leasing the facilities. McKewan asked if this is something that could be addressed when their leases come up. Perhaps they could put some language in the lease that requires improvements to the appearance of the hangars. Rief explained that the point of the ordinance they are working on is that it would apply as soon as the ordinance is adopted and they would not have to wait for the lease to come up. Gentry asked how they would enforce that ordinance. Rief responded that she could not answer specifically but MAC does have a building inspector on staff at MSP and they could possibly utilize that person to do those inspections. Nawrocki said that enforcement action would begin with the tenants lease and their responses would generate the next step to make sure that what is needed would take place. C. MET COUNCIL'S 2030 AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE King explained that Kipp attends various Met Council meetings and at one of those meetings a draft Chapter 4 of Aviation System Plan Update addressing airport role analysis was handed out. This was the first Kipp had seen of this document and brought it to the City's administration. King said after a meeting with the City Manager, it was decided that from the City's perspective, there is no need for the change in airport classification. It does not change anything in terms of what the plans are for Flying Cloud but it would reclassify Flying Cloud from a Minor airport to a Minor II which would allow a runway of up to 6,000 feet in length. King said he feels the reclassification would cause a lot of confusion and concern that Met Council has some motive to change the runway length in the future. He pointed out that the Final Agreement between the City and MAC states that runway length is not to exceed 5,000 feet and MAC has not changed their position on this. They are not for or against this particular change and they have indicated that it is too early for them to comment on the proposed reclassification. MAC does not have any different plans for Flying Cloud than what has been previously presented and the Met Council is not suggesting different plans. King said he is suggesting that this Commission recommend to the City Council that they take a stand against the Met Council's proposal. The City Council did discuss this at their last meeting and plan to talk about it at their next meeting. King pointed out that a Resolution has been drafted for City Council consideration and has been distributed to the Commission this evening. King asked that the Commission review this resolution and suggested that they consider recommending something as they see fit to the City Council. Michelson explained why people in the community are upset about this proposal. In the 90's when the Met Council was preparing their Guide Plan they saw in 2010 a driving force to lengthen a runway to 5,000 feet. At that time the definition of a small airport was a runway of 4,000 feet. When the Met Council made the recommendation that FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 8 Flying Cloud should go to 5,000 feet and the State approved their long-term plan Legislative action changed the definition of a small airport to 5,000 feet. When people in the community see this type of activity they become concerned. Michelson said from his point of view they cannot oppose this proposal strongly enough. He said he would definitely recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution and if they can word it stronger than proposed they should do so. Schendel asked Michelson what wording he is opposed to on the proposed Role Analysis. Michelson responded that at this point the proposal is very innocent. Page 4-4 talks about Intermediate Airports having a primary runway with a hard surface that is 6,000 feet in length or more. Michelson said the community has seen how easy it is to get things changed. He stated that their recommendation to the City Council should be strongly worded indicating that there is no need to change Flying Cloud's classification and they do not want this to happen. King stated that the proposal basically removes the 5,000 foot limit. They do still have the Final Agreement stating that Flying Cloud cannot expand beyond 5,000 feet and if they can't expand beyond 5,000 feet they don't need to change its classification. Michelson indicated that MAC's agreement states that they won't initiate beyond 5,000 feet but it doesn't mean the State can't put something into law that says they can expand to 6,000 feet. He said he feels the City Council should be very definite about what they recommend to the Met Council. King indicated that the possibility of an expansion beyond what is proposed is slight and he doesn't believe anyone contemplates a change to Flying Cloud's current proposal. However, anything that opens this at all will only cause unintended angst for something that doesn't need to happen. He said the purpose of the resolution is to try to get the Met Council to change their thinking before it gets too far down the line. King said he feels this Commission should go on record as supporting the proposed resolution as a minimum and a strongly worded memo should be included with the resolution. Michelson suggested they change the last line of the last paragraph of Page 1 to read ....... definition for intermediate use airports beginning at 6,000 feet and retain current state law." Motion: M/King, S/Michelson, to adopt the draft resolution as amended and recommend to the City Council they adopt this resolution or its amendments as they see fit to strongly oppose Met Council's proposal to amend airport classifications of the Twin Cities Regional Airport System Plan. Further, that the cover letter use strong language to register the opposition. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Nawrocki abstaining. Michelson asked Kipp to address his relationship with the Met Council Task Force. Kipp explained that he has attended meetings for a number of years and his involvement has been to listen, to learn and to ask questions and to monitor issues that FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 9 are happening within the regional system. He also gives any knowledge that he has as it relates to the City governing the airport within its boundaries. Kipp said this Committee also has a member from the City of Minneapolis that does the same type of things. Michelson asked if he is an official member of the Task Force. Kipp said he does not vote and his name was added as someone who attends the meetings and that resulted in him becoming a Committee person. Michelson asked if Kipp is officially representing Eden Prairie or if he is on his own and if he attends those meetings in an official capacity. Kipp responded that he represents Eden Prairie as himself and he is not an appointed member. When he is at the meetings he is able to pick up information and alert people about certain issues. Michelson asked Kipp if he advocated the proposed change and had this issue come up at previous meetings. Kipp said he did not advocate the change and this was the first he had heard of the proposed changes. D. JOINT AIRPORT ZONING BOARD FOR FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT Chad Leqve, MAC Representative, presented the background as to why a Joint Airport Zoning Board is needed for Flying Cloud Airport. Minnesota State Statutes establishes that airport hazards endanger lives, property and airport utility and should be prevented with consideration given to avoiding the disruption of existing land uses based on social and financial costs and in an effort to prevent the creation or establishment of airport hazards, the statute states that MAC shall request creation of one Joint Airport Zoning Board for each airport operated under its authority. Leqve said they anticipate having a meeting once appointments are made. He explained that the goal of the Board is to develop a FCM Zoning Ordinance for review and approval by the Commissioner of Transportation, for subsequent adoption by the Board and then by local municipalities. King said that one of the questions being asked is why this is coming up now. He explained that it has come up before but it was not done because of an indemnification issue. MAC has now indicated that they will indemnify the municipalities. Leqve stated that the major considerations of the Board will be MnDOT Model Ordinance, FCM's unique characteristics in the context of existing and planned land uses around the airport, and maintaining a reasonable standard of safety while considering the social and financial costs to the community. He pointed out that Minnesota Statute 360.066, Subdivision 1, is especially instructive when addressing the question of zoning around FCM. He reviewed the tasks of the Zoning Board and the runway safety zones under the Federal Runway Protection Zone. This Board will also be dealing with airspace zoning. Leqve said MAC is going through the process of defining the zones with a land use control ordinance that is enforceable. King pointed out that there may be a change in use of some of the previously restricted areas that can be commercially developed and turned into the tax rolls at the discretion of the Zoning Board. He reported that the City Manager has asked this Commission to review the proposal for a Joint Airport Zoning Board and to recommend two people FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 10 who should serve on this Board. King said he believes that if MAC does not indemnify the City, appointments to the Board from the City of Eden Prairie should not be made. King further reported that the Chair of the Board will be appointed by the municipalities serving on the Board. He stated that the City has a Planning Commission that deals with land use and this Commission deals with airport issues. It would be his recommendation that they appoint Kipp to one of the two positions since he works in the Planning Division and does planning work in addition to serving as staff liaison on this Commission. Michelson said he thinks someone from the Planning Commission would definitely be a good candidate to serve on this Board since they are used to dealing with zoning issues. He said he would recommend a member of the Planning Commission be appointed and perhaps someone from this Commission. Kipp pointed out that City staff is familiar with the City Code, the Guide Plan and land uses and how those uses were created and relate to each other. King said he would suggest that the two appointees be Kipp and a Planning Commission member. He also suggested that they recommend that the City Manager talk to the other municipalities that are making appointments to this Board so that Eden Prairie gets the Chair position since the airport is in Eden Prairie. King said that with MAC's indemnification and with the City's interest in developing land outside of the safety zone and putting it on the tax rolls are strong reasons to participate on this Board. Motion: M/King, S/Michelson, to recommend to the City Council that they fill the proposed Joint Airport Zoning Board with two people from Eden Prairie; one from the Planning Commission and one specifically Scott Kipp. Further, that our Commission recommends that the City Manager lobby the three other cities to ensure as much as possible that the chair selected be a resident of Eden Prairie since the airport is located in the City of Eden Prairie. It is expected that the City will receive indemnification from MAC prior to implementation of any of the zoning ordinances. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Nawrocki abstaining. E. MAY 28 SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING ON AIRPORT EXPANSION King reported that the date scheduled for the Special Public meeting has been scheduled for May 28 at Hennepin Technical College with their regular Commission meeting being held on May 14. King said he anticipates having two people from the FAA present who can talk about development and flight routing. Rief and Leqve will also speak about what is happening at Flying Cloud. King said they will be mailing approximately 7,900 notices to a radius 1.5 miles from airport property. Larsen suggested that they do something a little more concrete in terms of what the intent of the meeting is prior to the meeting taking place. He felt last time there was some confusion as to the meeting's intent last year. They may want to get together to FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 11 develop a rough draft as to how to phrase the notices so the people are not upset when they get to the meeting and it isn't what they thought it was going to be. Larsen said the Commission should also be involved in what is placed in the newspapers about this meeting. King said he thinks it would be good to have one or two members of this Commission prepare the notice to be mailed out and sent to the newspapers. He suggested that it then be distributed to the entire Commission for their review and input. Michelson and Gentry volunteered to prepare the postcard and editorial piece for the newspaper. King suggested that rather than submitting a press release they may want to meet with the newspaper reporter. He also suggested that they mail the notice to the residents by the end of April so that it is mailed out 30 days prior to the meeting. VII. EDUCATIONAL ITEMS A. GUEST SPEAKER—BRIAN FOX,AIR METHODS King reported that Fox was unable to make this evening's meeting. He will be rescheduled to appear at the Commission's next meeting. King also reported that Air Methods flies helicopters and during a conversation with another operator regarding noise abatement, it was mentioned that Air Methods was going to upgrade their helicopters to a quieter version. King indicated that they will be replacing their fleet with a four blade helicopter and a quieter and more modern helicopter than what they currently have. VIII.FINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND MAC A. NOISE COMPLAINTS/STAGE 2 OPERATIONS REPORT (JANUARY— FEBRUARY Skramstad reported that for the months of January and February there were 519 complaints filed from 51 households and 249 of those complaints were for nighttime operations between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. He said they sent out 73 letters with one operator receiving 21 letters, one operator receiving 18 letters and one operator receiving 13 letters. There were no Stage Il aircraft operations. Skramstad pointed out that there were significantly more complaints for day-time hours than what they have seen in the past. Most of the complaints were submitted by one household,resident No. 40 on the report. Seventy percent of the complaints were submitted by five households. The increase in percentage was driven by resident No. 40. Skramstad said he talked to the operator that received 73 letters and provided that operator with posters regarding the voluntary noise abatement. The operator did commit to placing the poster in mailboxes along with a memo reminding them about noise abatement. The operator did mention that all nighttime operations are life source flights. Skramstad pointed out that FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 12 14 different operators received one letter and that signals that more of the based tenants are receiving the majority of the letters rather than itinerant operators. IX. NOISE ABATEMENT/AIRCRAFT INCIDENTS A. LIFE LINK III HELICOPTER FLIGHT TRACKS (JANUARY-FEBRUARY Skramstad distributed the flight tracks for the life link operations. He reported that there were 77 helicopter complaints from 23 complainants. Forty-eight percent of those complaints were attributed to life link helicopter operations. Eighteen of those life link operations were during nighttime operations. Skramstad presented a flight track of one helicopter route and this route was exactly the route they were asked to fly. Even when they are doing what they are suppose to people are still complaining. Skramstad said that with the upgrade of helicopters mentioned earlier, they may see a drop in complaints. King said he agrees that there will probably be a drop in helicopter complaints once the new helicopters are on line. Kipp said it might be worthwhile to let the helicopters in flight without notification to see if complaints go down. X. NEW BUSINESS A. AIRPORT BUSINESS MEETINGS ON NOISE ABATEMENT EFFORTS AND IDEAS Included in the Commission's agenda material were notes from the Airport Businesses on Practices, Comments and Ideas to Address Noise Abatement. King said they have already met with three businesses and will be meeting with two more tomorrow. They are asking the business owners for ideas on noise abatement. XI. OTHER BUSINESS King reviewed the survey information included in the Commission's agenda material. In response to the question of what they liked least about living in Eden Prairie, no one mentioned the airport. In the last survey, 2 percent responded the airport. Questions 72 and 73 were questions regarding the airport. Ninety-five percent of the residents have never used the airport and 7 percent said airport noise is serious in Eden Prairie, 13 percent said it is somewhat serious, 31 percent said not too serious and 49 percent said it was not at all serious. Compared to last year, 10 percent thought airport noise was very serious, 27 percent felt it was somewhat serious, 35 percent said not too serious and 29 percent said it was not at all serious. King said they will have the break out by areas at the next meeting. King said that at next month's meeting they will have a speaker from Air Methods. They have also received a request from Pellar-Price to speak to the Commission. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2009 Page 13 Various FYI Items: • Approved FCAAC minutes of November 13, 2009 • Approved City Council Workshop/FCAAC Minutes of February 3, 2009 • Approved City Council Minutes on FCAAC Work Plan and Goals, February 3, 2009 • Decision Resources, Ltd. Community Survey Pertaining to Airport • MAC memos on FCM Runway 10$/28L Phase 1 Initial Grading and CIP Adjustments • Various airport/aviation related news articles • Life in the Prairie—January, 2009 issue • Next commission meeting is scheduled for May 14, 2009 XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Motion was made by Michelson, seconded by King, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried, 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.