Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - 01/26/2000 APPROVED MINUTES FLYING CLOUD ADVISORY COMMISSION WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 26, 2000 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER PRAIRIE ROOM A & B 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tom Heffelfinger, Jeff Larsen, John Smith and Gary Schmidt VISITORS: Jeff Kleinbeck, Flying Cloud Tower Manager; Mitch Killian, MAC; Roy Furhmann, MAC; Chad Leqve, MAC; Joe Smith, Elliott Aviation and Glen Orcutt, FAA STAFF: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Carol Pelzel, City Recorder CALL TO ORDER Chair Heffelfinger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commission members Bauer, Nitchman and Kilpatrick were absent. Visitors listed above. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Heffelfinger explained that this is a special meeting and the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the December 16, 1999, Washington, D.C. trip and the status of the Draft EIS and the implications of the Washington trip upon that. MOTION: Smith moved, seconded by Larsen, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 3, 1999, MINUTES MOTION: Schmidt moved, seconded by Smith, to approve the minutes of the November 3, 1999, Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2000 Page 2 III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Update on Trip to Washiniton D.C. Rmardins!Proposed Changes to Ordinance 51 Heffelfinger reported that a delegation did travel to Washington D.C. on December 16, 1999, to meet with various governmental agencies regarding changes to Ordinance 51. The delegation included Tom Heffelfinger, Al Nitchman, Joe Smith, Gary Schmidt, Mitch Killian and Scott Kipp. Heffelfinger expressed his appreciation to Elliott Aviation for providing the transportation to Washington. Heffelfinger explained that the primary purpose of the trip was to consult with the FAA to get some sense of how the FAA would respond to the Commissions' revisions to Ordinance 51 and the nighttime curfew issues. The group first met with Louise Maillett, FAA Deputy Assistant to the Administrator for Policy Planning and International Aviation. The Part 161 Study would eventually end up under her jurisdiction. The Deputy appreciated the work that has been done by this Commission and appreciated the fact that the Commission has stuck together on this extremely important issue. She felt it is in the best interest of the FAA to seek out and support community based issues and solutions. The Deputy did agree that what is being proposed would require a Part 161 Study, however, she could not comment on whether they would approve or disapprove it. She indicated that they do prefer voluntary restrictions over mandated restrictions and did agree that this Commission is pursuing the right goals by getting concurrence and attempting to influence any opposition from special interest groups. The FAA is looking at this whole issue and is concerned about a discriminatory rule being made by a local aviation authority. The Deputy suggested that they use voluntary agreement even if mandatory conditions become part of the 161 process. Heffelfinger reported that the group also met with Congressman Oberstar and he is concerned that they are trying to seek something different or special or an exemption that does not apply to other people. Heffelfinger said they did explain that it is a compromise that would work for everybody's best interest. The group then met with Congressman Ramstad's Legislative Assistant. This information was relayed to Congressman Ramstad and a letter was received from him indicating that he was fully advised of the issue and he will be of whatever help he can be. A meeting was also held with Jack Olcott of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). Heffelfinger stated that he was very supportive of the fact that the group had the buy-in from the interested parties in the operation of the airport and to the extent that there would be minimal impact from any of these proposals. Mr. Olcott did have some concerns, however, Heffelfinger said he did not feel the NBAA would oppose this. Heffelfinger proposed that they ask MAC to obtain from the operators voluntary compliance of the conditions that will be the subject of the Part 161 Study in advance FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2000 Page 3 of that study being submitted or acted upon. The 161 Study will be a long and expensive process, however, they cannot change Ordinance 51 because they do not know what the results of the Part 161 Study will be. If Part 161 is approved that would be fine, however, if it is rejected or this Commission and MAC decide not to go forward than they would still have the voluntary compliance in place. Heffelfinger said he would not be in favor of abandoning the Part 161 Study because of the public's perception that the voluntary compliance is not concrete. Heffelfinger said he would like to hear the Commission's feelings on this since it is a departure from what they agreed on almost a year ago. Smith said he felt it was a good idea and asked if the voluntary process could be put into effect today. Heffelfinger said he thought it could be done immediately. Smith asked if the Part 161 Study is approved, would it make the voluntary actions mandatory. Heffelfinger responded that it would. Smith said he personally does not feel that they will have any trouble getting the 161 Study approved. Heffelfinger explained that he is proposing to the Commission that the ordinance revisions passed last spring be amended to include voluntary agreements in anticipation of 161 being declined or denied. While reporting on the Washington trip to the City Council one Councilmember did ask why he should trust a voluntary agreement. Schmidt pointed out that there are really two issues to be considered. The first is that this body is being asked to endorse going to voluntary agreements, which changes to mandatory once the Part 161 Study is completed. The other implication is the procedure issue for the Draft EIS process and he asked that Glen Orcutt of the FAA to address this. MOTION: Smith moved, seconded by Larsen, that language be added to sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the amended Ordinance 51 for clarification to the effect that MAC shall pursue a Part 161 Study and prior to the completion of that Study, MAC shall enter into written voluntary agreements with operators pursuant to which said aircraft not meeting Stage III Certification shall not use the airport during curfew hours, and that maintenance runups shall not occur during curfew hours. Such agreements shall remain in effect until completion and approval of Part 161 or if Part 161 is denied. Motion carried, 4-0. B. Status of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS sent to Commissioner's by MAC) Heffelfinger pointed out that the Draft EIS indicates that the MAC preferred alternative is Alternative E which references the new weight limit agreed upon, however, it does not reference any of the other three criteria. Heffelfinger said he did express some objections to not having all four parts of Ordinance 51 referenced under Alternative E. Heffelfinger said he would like to see this issue addressed prior to the public hearing and does not believe that it is MAC's intention to mislead the public. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2000 Page 4 Heffelfinger explained that he does see the concern about amending the document at this stage because it does kick in other procedures and there is not sufficient time to accomplish what is required. From his perspective, he said he felt it would have been very easy to place a footnote on those pages where Alternative E is discussed to mention the other three criteria. In response to Orcutt's question, Heffelfinger read the four sections the Commission voted on in May, which included new sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of the amended Ordinance 51. Schmidt explained that the FAA couldn't endorse something that is specifically prohibited by Federal regulations. Some of the restrictions that are being proposed in the EIS are prohibitive because they have not gone through the Part 161 Study, and it is necessary for the FAA to sign off on the EIS document now. Orcutt pointed out that this is a joint document of the Federal and State EIS. MAC has signed a memorandum of understanding defining the rules and in those rules one of the things that comes about is the disagreement regarding regulatory responsibility. There is no clean way to totally meet the intent of the mitigation group and be consistent with Federal regulations. Orcutt explained that MAC cannot put something into the document regarding airport restrictions without knowing the outcome of the Part 161 Study. Orcutt said they are suggesting that they keep the Part 161 Study outside of the EIS process. The Study will take a long time and they want to move forward with the EIS. In the end there will be some mechanism put in place where the airport will comply with the 161 process and if it ends up that they agree to mandatory restrictions that could be implemented without any further environmental analysis. Any voluntary type of agreement before or after Federal decisions could also be implemented without any additional environmental analysis. Orcutt said he feels the best approach for giving local control back to the airport authority is to follow the 161 process and the EIS as outlined and the decision making can move forward without any other type of activity. Larsen said he understands the technical reasons for what the FAA is doing, however, it may be overwhelming for the residents at the public meeting if their intent is not clearly stated. Smith agreed and said there should be some reference in Alternative E that refers to the other portions of the ordinance so that when the residents are reading through the document they are aware that there are other pieces to this document that guarantee voluntary agreement subject to becoming mandatory with Part 161 approval. Heffelfinger said the Commission did agree to amend Ordinance 51 to the effect that MAC shall enter into voluntary agreements which shall remain in effect pending the outcome of the Part 161 Study and MAC shall pursue the Part 161 Study. Heffelfinger asked if what he is hearing is that the FAA can't agree to something that has not been decided. Orcutt responded that that is true and they must now determine what the wording should be in the document. If this meeting had been held in December they could have made special notations in the Draft EIS clarifying Ordinance 51. Orcutt said they are all in agreement on what is going to take place,however, it is not clarified in the Draft EIS. Larsen said this needs to be clarified for the people who will be FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2000 Page 5 attending the public hearing. Heffelfinger suggested they have a handout that would state that the FAA and MAC, following consultation with the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, agree to clarify Alternative E to include the scope of the revisions of Ordinance 51. Furhmann pointed out that the purpose of the public hearing is to present the opportunity for the public to make comments and he proposed that this body make an official presentation at that meeting. This would allow them to clarify Alternative E and become part of the public hearing process. Heffelfinger said he has no problem with that and suggested that a representative of MAC hand out a document that would clarify the intention of MAC and the FAA as to Alternative E with respect to Ordinance 51. Schmidt suggested that he appear at the public hearing and state that MAC has agreed to the four points of Ordinance 51 and is committing to not change Ordinance 51 without those four provisions. Following lengthy discussion, Heffelfinger asked that language to be presented at the public hearing be drafted and provided to the Advisory Commission for approval at the February 1 MAC EIS Advisory Committee meeting. Larsen said he feels that an explanation needs to be in writing and distributed at the public hearing with regards to Ordinance 51 explaining that the Airports Commission did work with the Airport Advisory Commission to develop alternative Ordinance 51. Orcutt asked for clarification on what the Commission was asking for. He asked if they are looking for a letter from MAC which would become part of the public hearing process clarifying their intent of the document and if they also wanted a letter distributed at the meeting on the agreed upon language which also becomes part of the record. Orcutt explained that if a statement is made at the public hearing it becomes part of the process as clarification of the document. Heffelfinger said he feels a letter needs to come from both the FAA and MAC clarifying their intentions and suggested that it be addressed to "Whom it may Concern". Orcutt said he would work with their legal staff to assist in developing such a letter. Heffelfinger suggested that Orcutt and Schmidt draft a memo that states the intent of the FAA and MAC to clarify that all recommended changes to Ordinance 51with regard to Alternative E be incorporated into Alternative E. Heffelfinger asked that once the exact language is worked out it be faxed to the Commission members for their review prior to the Draft EIS public hearing. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2000 Page 6 IV. OTHER BUSINESS Heffelfinger reported that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission is scheduled for February 2, 2000. MOTION: Heffelfinger moved, seconded by Larsen, to cancel the February 2 meeting unless some member of the Commission desires to have a meeting prior to the February 9 public hearing to review the items discussed earlier. Motion carried, 4-0. Noise Complaints for Flyins! Cloud Airport for October through December, 1999 The Board reviewed the noise complaints received for the October through December, 1999, time period. Terms of Office Kipp reported that Heffelfinger's, Nitchman's and Kilpatrick's terms on the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission will expire at the end of March. He suggested that if they are interested in reappointment they reapply. The deadline for filing the applications is February 11 after which the City Council will hold interviews on February 22. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Motion Schmidt, Second Larsen, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried, 4-0. ADJOURNMENT: 8:35 P.M.