Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - 04/17/2001 UNAPPROVED MINUTES FLYING CLOUD ADVISORY COMMISSION TUESDAY,APRIL 17, 2001 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM H 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Demee, Tom Heffelfinger, Jeff Larsen, Laura Neuman, Gary Schmidt and Joe Smith Glen Orcutt, FAA Representative COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Mitch Anderson MAC REPRESENTATIVES: Roy Furhmann, Mitch Kilian, Chad Leqve and Mark Ryan STAFF: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Carol Pelzel, City Recorder CALL TO ORDER Chair Heffelfinger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I. SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBER The oath of office was administered to Gary Demee as a resident-at-large for a term expiring March 31, 2003. II. WELCOME TO GLEN ORCUTT AS FAA REPRESENTATIVE Chairperson Heffelfinger formally welcomed Glen Orcutt and expressed his appreciation for his accepting this Commission's invitation to join them as an attendee at these meetings. He explained that Orcutt is not an official member of this Advisory Commission and is not allowed to vote,however, they do expect him to join in discussion and to provide them with whatever input he can. Orcutt explained that one of the concerns expressed by MAC is FAA's concern for discretionary funding for the Airports Commission. Based on the City's request of the Airports Commission to delay their decision on eliminating Ordinance 51 until July, and as long as they are still working towards a solution, the FAA would accept the process at this time. As long as they are moving in that direction, there is no further written action needed and discretionary funding would not be in jeopardy. Schmidt indicated that he will be drafting a letter explaining MAC's official process and he will provide this Commission with a copy of that letter. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 17, 2001 Page 2 III. APPROVAL OF MARCH 14, 2001, MINUTES Furhmann asked that the second from the last paragraph, fifth line, on Page 4 be corrected to read"Fuhrmann explained that the driving force on the size of the contour is departure and arrivals." Demee asked that the second sentence at the top of Page 4 read"The 20,000- pound weight restriction was not meant to be a measure of noise." MOTION: Smith moved, seconded by Larsen, to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion carried, 6-0. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Clarification of FAA Role with Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission Heffelfinger said it is his hope that Orcutt will work with them and help them in seeking a compromise with the dispute that exists between MAC, the FAA and the City. Orcutt responded that he is here in an advisory capacity and as a point of contact. He is also here to help facilitate a solution to these issues and for the City and MAC to develop some agreement that is acceptable to the FAA. B. Update on April 3 MAC Planning and Environment Committee on Ordinance 51 Heffelfinger reported that the Planning and Environment Committee did recommend that any action on Ordinance 51 be delayed and that a report be returned to the Committee on July 10 as to where this Commission is with regard to Ordinance 51. Schmidt explained that he would be making a presentation at the next P&E Committee meeting on the historical background of Ordinance 51. C. Alternatives to Ordinance 51 1. Identification of Issues and Process 2. Issue to date: ■ Noise restrictions ■ Weight restrictions ■ Lease agreements ■ FAA involvement ■ Physical modifications ■ Financial incentives Heffelfinger said he thought it would be helpful for this Commission to focus on the areas where they disagree. He suggested that they conduct more of a brainstorming session. Heffelfinger said he did develop five fundamental areas he feels they should focus on as core issues. The first would be what Ordinance 51 is going to attempt to FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 17, 2001 Page 3 achieve. The second issue would be what means are they going to use to achieve those goals. The third issue would be what form of enforcement would be used to achieve compliance with the means. The fourth issue would be the term or what level of permanence will this have. They need to determine what would be necessary to change it. The final issue is what form would they use to accomplish whatever they decide. Would it be an amendment to Ordinance 51, a handshake, etc. Schmidt said when they first started talking they did not address Ordinance 51 but did address the Comprehensive Plan which was to keep the footprint as close to a no build as possible. The hang up appears to be from the community side, which appears to be a lack of trust. They are pushing for some concrete assurances and ultimately that led to Ordinance 51. Heffelfinger said he feels they need to seek local controls for both MAC and the City that will not be viewed as discriminatory. Orcutt pointed out that there are several provisions in the existing Ordinance 51 that do violate federal law. He suggested that they look at other means. The community wants some type of structure to control noise at this airport. The existing ordinance does not achieve the goals of noise control. Orcutt said that Ordinance 51 as it currently exists does not and will not work. Neuman asked if the federal government can pre-empt local laws regarding noise restraints. Orcutt responded that the federal government does not have the authority over local governments unless the City is the airport owner. The federal government has control over airport authorities through grant assurances. Heffelfinger asked what the biggest problem is that Ordinance 51 presents to the FAA. Orcutt answered that any rule or provision that is anything other than a voluntary restriction such as a mandatory local restriction that prevents access to the aviation system is discriminatory. Heffelfinger explained that another concern is whether or not weight is a valid issue for evaluating noise restriction and whether or not it is an effective measure of noise. Orcutt explained that weight is not discriminatory. Placing weight limits is effective in controlling noise and that limit does not discriminate against any airport users. Schmidt pointed out that weight itself is not a noise related issue as long as there is adequate justification. If they do not have adequate justification, their grant assurances would be affected. Orcutt said weight restriction could be used if it presents a safety issue. For example, heavier aircraft could be restricted because of pavement limitations. This would be a safety issue and not a noise issue. Smith pointed out that it was the operators that brought to their attention that the current Ordinance 51 did not do what it was clearly intended to do. Smith said he is having trouble understanding what the intent of Ordinance 51 is suppose to be. Do they want to have operations controlled at night, control noise or restrict growth on the airport. Heffelfinger suggested that they focus on the five general issues presented FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 17, 2001 Page 4 earlier this evening; goal, means, enforcement, term of agreement and form to determine what the ultimate intent of Ordinance 51 will be. Heffelfinger said he did ask MAC to provide them with copies of the leases to determine whether or not these leases would provide them with a vehicle to assist them in reaching a compromise. Heffelfinger explained that three years ago they reached the conclusion that they were not going to agree on the goals but would respect the goals of all of the other participants. Heffelfinger said that Ordinance 51 was originally intended to focus on two things. The first was noise and the second was the nature and size of the aircraft using Flying Cloud Airport, which has been converted into the fundamental character of the airport. MAC's goal is to maximize the use of this facility. Schmidt explained that it was MAC's intent to maintain the footprint of Flying Cloud. They need to respect everyone's position understanding that community representatives did not want a huge facility in the community and that they are concerned about the impact this facility has on taxes, athletic fields, etc. Neuman said that if they use the current footprint, she would like to make sure that they have an accurate footprint showing the current situation and the expansion. Neuman said she does not feel they are using accurate noise information. Schmidt explained that they do use national models for developing the footprint. He further explained that they did not change their position on what is coming in but they did go back and confirmed what the fleet mix was. This resulted in their changing the inventory and not their position. Heffelfinger said he feels there is no reason to dispute the model. Heffelfinger explained that the footprint did work for the community members at one time. Whatever change they do achieve will probably not reduce noise or traffic. The best they can expect is that the fundamental character of the airport will not change significantly. Schmidt suggested that Neuman meet with representatives of MAC to review the model they use. Furhmann invited all members of the Commission to meet with MAC officials to review the DNL inputs, forecasts and trends. These items were reviewed three years ago. Neuman said the issue regarding alternatives to Ordinance 51 should include insulation of homes for noise. Kipp pointed out that this would be part of the mitigation plan of the Environmental Impact Statement. Demee said he thinks the citizens are most concerned about annoying noise. They need to find ways to reduce or limit certain types of annoying planes. Neuman said this needs to be addressed for both daytime and evening hours and they need to address the frequency of the noise. Heffelfinger explained that one of the reasons they chose this particular footprint pattern was because it does penalize annoying noises. They need to focus on the hours it occurs. Neuman said she feels the number one goal is noise. She does agree with the character of the airport but only as it relates to noise. If the airport is expanded, another issue would be pollution. Runoff would be increased as would air pollution. Ryan suggested FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 17, 2001 Page 5 that Neuman attend the next public hearing on the Supplement EIS and present her comments relating to pollution and noise. Kipp inquired if MAC intends on using the latest aviation forecasts recently provided to the Metropolitan Council, adding that this may change the noise contours. Orcutt explained that one of the things identified in the draft EIS is that the forecast be updated. This updated information will be used for the environmental process to assess impacts such as noise. Ryan explained that the forecast information was basically revised based on input from the City to the draft EIS. These changes will be incorporated into the supplemental EIS that is being prepared. Heffelfinger explained that they worked pretty hard two years ago to rewrite Ordinance 51. The goal of the footprint was to realize the goal of this Committee's interests. Heffelfinger said he feels they should not change that as a measure for achieving the goal of a no growth footprint. Heffelfinger said they need to focus their work on the means. An enforcement vehicle was built into the last model and it would be foolish to abandon Ordinance 51. The FAA has no objection to the ordinance but to certain aspects of that ordinance which they have found discriminatory. They need to look at what was agreed upon two years ago and focus on the areas where there is disagreement. Heffelfinger suggested that each member review the final revised Ordinance 51 and look at it in light of the five issues discussed this evening. Heffelfinger said he thinks they will find that they need to only focus on one issue. Neuman said she did not want to focus only on Ordinance 51. If Ordinance 51 is eliminated they would have done a lot of work that would not give them a solution. Heffelfinger said they would be rewriting a statute and they don't want to invest a lot of time on issues that are not problematic. Heffelfinger said that voluntary restrictions do not appear to be acceptable without some sort of inducement or penalty. Smith said he disagrees that voluntary restriction without penalties is inefficient. This industry is self-policing. When they were in Washington it was made very clear that the FAA felt voluntary restrictions across the country were effective. Smith suggested that without trying voluntary restrictions they would not know how effective they would be. They should try it and if it is not effective they can say that they did try it and it did not work. Smith said he feels that they are asking to regulate something that they are not even sure needs to be regulated. Neuman explained that she had presented a two-page complaint that gave specific instances where the noise abatement plan was not followed. She said that she wants to make this Commission aware of the noise problem. The noise monitoring that is done is done for such a short time. She feels to accurately record the noise they need to do a greater percentage of monitoring during the nighttime hours. Out of 248 hours monitored in 1998, six hours of that was during the night. Furhmann explained that as MAC proposed changes to the airport, the City requested that noise be monitored. This FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 17, 2001 Page 6 necessitated a base line as to what kind of noise environment exists at the airport. Through efforts of this Commission, they focused the monitoring at the time the aircraft are flying. Furhmann further explained how the monitoring occurs. He indicated that if they increased the monitoring of nighttime flights, the average operations per hour would decrease. They are attempting to develop a ten-year baseline and this would be the tenth year. Furhmann said they could arrange more nighttime hours, however, focusing on nighttime flights will shift the time available and will skew the data. Neuman said it seems that every time a noise complaint is presented to this Commission their response is that it is a rogue operator and she feels this is not correct since it is occurring so frequently. Neuman said operators are not currently following the noise abatement plan and she questioned why they would agree to voluntary compliance. Orcutt explained that they could place in the ordinance some enforcement mechanism for voluntary agreements. Heffelfinger suggested that they spend some time on the Reliever Airports Commercial Lease. Schmidt briefly reviewed the commercial lease and the lease policies, rules and regulations of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. He explained that they have spent over 18 months in developing these documents and have held several public hearings and meetings to adopt the policies. Heffelfinger pointed out that Section 7a. of the lease states that the tenant shall comply with all applicable local, municipal, county, state and federal laws. This would mean that the lease would not have to be changed but it would have to be enforced. The only public hearing that would need to be conducted would be on Ordinance 51 because MAC's tenants agree to comply with local laws. Schmidt said he feels they would be pitting one airport against another. Heffelfinger said he feels that having a voluntary agreement with inducements or penalties would be an advantage to the operators. Orcutt pointed out that a lease type action is subject to FAA review. He said he would like to see the voluntary agreement remain on the table for further discussion. Neuman suggested that they include in the policy and lease agreement that all tenants must follow all noise abatement plans. Schmidt explained that that policy does not relate to the leases but relates to the operators of the aircraft. MAC does endorse and officially adopt the noise abatement policy. Schmidt indicated that it is difficult for them to monitor every situation. Orcutt said he feels there are a group of individual type pilot organizations that may not agree to any voluntary agreement that includes penalties. Schmidt indicated that it would be difficult to track operators that are in violation or compliance of the agreement. Heffelfinger pointed out that MAC does currently charge late fees and must track those payments. He suggested that they look at the method used for that tracking. Also, the inducement or penalty rate would be set in Ordinance 51 that would be specific to Flying Cloud. The burden for collection or reduction of rates could be put on the operator. Schmidt said he feels this would change the philosophy of the footprint. Heffelfinger responded that they are trying to reduce the overall flights at night, which would have a positive impact on the footprint. Kipp questioned how the FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 17, 2001 Page 7 voluntary incentive would be monitored and how this would affect subleases or hangar owners. Demee suggested a 20% increase in rent unless they agree to voluntary compliance. Smith said with regard to the City, should the operators agree to a voluntary agreement, would they be assured that the runway could be extended. If the operators agree to this, they will want to know what this will mean for them. Schmidt pointed out that MAC did develop a proposal that the City did not accept. Kipp explained that they have met with MAC officials and they have agreed to keep Ordinance 51 in place until an effective alternative has been agreed upon. The City did endorse the idea of going in this direction. Heffelfinger asked what the balance would be for the City should the runway be extended. Heffelfinger said he is not suggesting that Ordinance 51 address runway length but the City does need reasonable assurances that the noise issue is addressed. Demee said he feels they need to let the citizens of Eden Prairie know what MAC is doing to address the nighttime noise issue. Heffelfinger said he feels the issue of a voluntary agreement can be accomplished a number of different ways. Ordinance 51 has worked in the past. Schmidt said he would prefer to eliminate Ordinance 51 totally and work to develop a new ordinance. The whole premise of the original Ordinance 51 was based on weight issues. Heffelfinger suggested they develop a strong voluntary compliance program that covers all operators and provide some protection for future growth. Schmidt said he agrees as long as it achieves the goals they originally set out to accomplish and doesn't put Flying Cloud at a disadvantage with other airports. Heffelfinger explained that the existing lease states that they must comply with the law. He is suggesting that they offer inducements to achieve compliance. Orcutt questioned who would enforce these inducements. Heffelfinger responded that ultimately it is MAC's responsibility, however, the City of Eden Prairie could also enforce it. If they extend the voluntary program with teeth to it, the City will benefit from a significant reduction in the noise pattern at this airport. Smith said this is an accountability issue. Operators do not want to agree to anything they can't deliver on otherwise they lose integrity and accountability. From an operator's perspective, Smith said he needs to talk to other operators to determine how they as operators would accomplish a voluntary agreement. Smith said he is not totally against the concept but needs to consider it further. Kilian pointed out that a transient operator would be allowed to fly at night without penalties while a based operator would be assessed a penalty. Kilian said this would result in the local tenant being discriminated against. The lease clearly states that the tenants shall abide by the laws. Now if MAC comes back and makes changes in how they can operate at Flying Cloud they would not be doing so in good faith with the tenants. Neuman pointed out that there is a noise abatement plan in place. Heffelfinger FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie April 17, 2001 Page 8 responded that a tenant who has a single instance will not be penalized. They will need to define a pattern and penalize repeat violators and reward those who continually comply. This is why discriminatory is not a valid issue. V. OTHER BUSINESS Heffelfinger urged that all members of this Commission keep an open mind while focusing on a vehicle for a global settlement. They will have to give something to get something. Heffelfinger proposed that they meet every two weeks until they reach the end of this process. He asked that members of the Commission contact Kipp to let him know if they would be available May 3 or May 9 for the next meeting. Heffelfinger said he would like to discuss thoughts on the lease issue and options if that doesn't work. They should move forward on the means and brainstorm on other means. He also asked that Orcutt present to the FAA the concept of using leases. Peller-Price asked if there are different leases for a commercial lease or a corporate lease for general aviation. Heffelfinger responded that there are different leases for the tenants in different categories. The category impacts the lease rate and those rates may be different but are covered by all basic lease provisions. The policies and procedures are applicable to everyone. Schmidt explained that there are different rates for each airport and the rate is based on the actual expenses incurred. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Neuman moved, seconded by Demee, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.