PORT OF ORCAS
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
June 25, 2009
Chair Eimers welcomed the members of the public to the special meeting, a work session dealing with through-the-fence matters. Eimers stated that no decisions would be made at the meeting, and that there would be regular and perhaps additional special meetings until the issue was resolved. Eimers noted that the meeting needed to follow standard meeting ground rules of respect and politeness.
With that, Eimers began a recap of the current resurfacing of the matter, starting with the visit of Tim Shaw, FAA representative, at the May meeting. At that meeting, Shaw outlined the more stringent position the FAA was taking re through-the-fence access. Shaw also outlined the FAA’s position in a following e-mail, which had been distributed at the June port meeting. Summarizing the FAA’s position, Eimers listed the need for an implementation plan for all TTF agreements, evidence of progress toward fulfillment, and good faith effort toward that end. Eimers summed up that the FAA was moving toward controlling access to airports.
Eimers went on to state that the consequences of not having/implementing such a plan has consequences, which are primarily financial: the withholding of AIP funds because of a lack of compliance with grant assurances, a document signed by recipients each time grant monies are awarded.
Eimers concluded his remarks, noting that the responsibility for crafting such a plan rests with the port, without much guidance from the FAA. And, although a benchmark of equivalency with an on-airport tiedown fee was mentioned, it was not clear whether this would meet all the criteria. In the past, the port had accepted grant monies, signed the grant assurances document, and not met all the criteria. This meeting, he noted, was designed to deal with possible solutions which might meet the FAA’s acceptance, and to move forward with such alternatives as might be proposed. With that, after asking the other commissioners for additional statementst, he opened the meeting to public comment.
Paul Kamin asked exactly what ‘controlling access’ to the runway meant to the port. Eimers replied that by fulfilling the grant assurances, the port would continue to benefit from AIP funding.
Kamin asked whether ‘control’ meant ‘eliminate’ access, and Eimers replied that the status quo was not acceptable to the FAA.
Mel Shapiro inquired what the conditions were for getting further AIP funding, and whether a newly-crafted and FAA-accepted agreement was tied to collecting monies from abutters, and whether there was currently a shortfall of funding at the port. Eimers answered that the port is not self-sufficient now, and AIP funding is used to fund major capital projects.
Dan Stevens reiterated the rights of those who hold deeded access, and inquired whether either the holders of deeded access or the port had asked for a legal interpretation of the effects of not complying. Eimers noted that the FAA takes a passive position re compliance and its ramifications.
Merrill Wien inquired what kinds of capital project improvements were contemplated, and which had been funded recently. Eimers noted that the lighting, AWOS, and signage improvements from the last major grant had brought the airport closer to commercial service standards.
Bob Waunch asked what options the port had. Jack Becker stated that FAA funding is the route through which the airport’s future is based, regarding large capital projects.
Eimers added that his interpretation of the recent emphasis on TTF matters was the result of congressional oversight looks at airparks in particular, where public dollars were spent for private benefit. The oversight seems to be less clear with ‘hybrid’ airports, such as Orcas, especially where deeded access is one of the factors.
Waunch added that the FAA has imposed new rules after the fact.
Eric Johnson stated that airports are similar to highways, in that tax dollars and grants are used to construct and maintain them.
Wien inquired whether the FAA had a different interpretation of those who fly in to an airport (thus paying no fee) as opposed to those who taxi across the ‘fence’ in order to use the runway. Eimers replied that common standards have been composed and applied by the FAA to apply to all airports (the cookie-cutter approach). Cathy Vierthaler disagreed with that concept, noting that each airport division seems to have its own discrete agenda, and the TTF concept is unique to the NW Mountain division.
Eimers pointed out and distributed copies of an article which appeared in the June issue of Aircraft Owner Elite, which outlined the problems faced at the Driggs, ID airport.
Stevens inquired about a completion date for FAA acceptance, and whether the port had missed the funding cutoff date for this fiscal year. Eimers replied that the port had missed the funding opportunity for this year, and that something needed to be in place no later than early spring 2010.
Kamin asked whether finite numbers could be generated regarding funding, and Eimers answered that some numbers could be generated, but others not.
Paul Vierthaler asked what questions the FAA needed answers to: if control of aircraft accessing the airport was the solution, that seemed to necessitate some form of legal contract. Eimers replied that one of the major components was encroachment issues around an airport, which the FAA views as a negative impact. He stated that the FAA, in its effort to regulate encroachment, disallows residential development, and has instituted overlay districts to help entities with the zoning tools to help accomplish that.
P Vierthaler went on to state that each airport needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and stated that perhaps 50 airports in the NW region do not meet TTF criteria as dictated by the FAA. He also noted that there is a difference between commercial and residential TTF issues. Eimers replied that the FAA answer seems to be that ‘one size fits all’, and ‘if you don’t fit, don’t play’ (meaning don’t apply for FAA funds).
Waunch wondered how the port might separate aircraft owners from those whose presence is merely residential.
Eric Gourley stated that the TTF concept was merely a method of exercising ultimate control by the FAA. He said that any fee imposed by the port in order to comply was arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory, and hid behind the concept of creating a safer airport. The FAA’s pursuit of this concept was a plan, not a vision, and unfair in his estimation.
Stevens noted that if any fees are imposed, they only increase over time.
Waunch stated that he was in favor of not being an FAA-funded airport. He added that if any deed addendum was constructed, it needed to be locked in permanently.
Gourley added that the FAA will be here longer than any of the deed-holders. He suggested that giving the port the ability to buy properties as they came on the market might be part of the remedy. The port could own the property, including the access.
Waunch suggested perhaps a ‘percentage of something’ might be agreed to.
Eimers noted that port commissioners have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the investments made in the facility for the community at large.
P Vierthaler asked whether a list of airports in the northwest not taking FAA funds could be compiled.
Eimers added that the port could generate more income.
Gourley said he would write his congressional representatives to inquire about the political component which was present.
Terry Otten asked whether the port might ask for an exception/exemption from the TTF policy from the FAA. He also noted that the tax rate for properties with deeded access was three times the rate for property not so deeded, and wondered whether SJC might offer a tax offset or reduce the taxes for the deeded properties. Eimers answered that the properties are taxed based on the current market value, and that those with deeded access paid more for their properties, and so were assessed higher.
Kim Middleton asked whether, if the FAA dollars were critical for the constituents, that perhaps issuing bonds with voter approval might be a better way to proceed than accepting those dollars. This would give the islanders a way to either support or not support the airport.
Gourley noted that the FAA needs to be convinced that these are subtle fees that are proposed to be imposed on property owners. P/C Vierthaler gave as examples current and past property assessments in differing locations.
P/C Vierthaler outlined the FAA’s concession on constructing the fence, granting access to Eric Johnson, and construction of the Parnell house, and inquired whether the FAA wasn’t complicit in each of those actions.
Wien asked what the county contributed to the port, and Eimers noted police and fire protection as examples.
McCoy stated that there are legal issues which need to be dealt with as this process moves forward.
Mark Ottmer, former airport manager of the Driggs ID airport, noted that the airport there had imposed a square-foot access charge on the TTF properties which was equivalent to that of on-field leases, which had been accepted by the FAA. The FAA then required that at the end of those deeded-access leases, access to the runway would be denied.
P Vierthaler stated that the AOPA had been investigating this issue as well.
David Selwyn inquired whether the FAA’s final goal was to deny access to the runway. Gourley replied that the FAA was using fees to get total control of the properties, after which access could be denied.
C Vierthaler inquired about facilities (land) not currently used by the port.
Gourley concluded that the FAA was moving above and beyond their original vision of safety, and moving toward a mission of control.
Ottmer stated that all the indicators led toward ties into contracts with ports and airport owners.
P Vierthaler reiterated the historical upward movement of costs.
Hopkins noted that it is a goal of port districts to be self-supporting; Orcas had not attained that goal.
Middleton asked whether it was an FAA goal of controlling surrounding land. Eimers noted that perhaps a long-term lease of purchased land was an option to be explored.
Gourley asked what the next steps were. Eimers replied that the commissioners needed to consolidate all the ideas generated, for which he thanked the participants, and that the discussion would continue at the next several meetings. He then thanked those who came and participated in an orderly and polite meeting.
The next regular meeting was scheduled for July 9, 2009 at 7:00P.M. in the port conference room.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00P.M.
____________________________________
Ulanah McCoy, Commissioner and Secretary
Prepared by
_____________________________
Bea vonTobel, Airport Manager