PORT OF ORCAS
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
October 22, 2009
Before starting through the one-item agenda, Chair Eimers noted that the special meeting had been called because of new information received which applies to the through-the-fence issue. Eimers noted that FAA Order 5190.6B (released 9/30/09) had been received from AOPA Airport Volunteer and former commissioner Jack Becker via e-mail. The new compliance manual is now in a public comment period which will end in early 2010, after which formal adoption will occur. Eimers further noted that the former compliance manual, published in 1984, was 94 pages in length; the proposed new edition contains over 600 pages, of which a considerable portion is devoted to through-the-fence issues.
Eimers continued that according to section 20 of the new manual, residences of private property adjacent to airports which receive federal funding are incompatible land uses, and should those conditions exist, the value in crossing the airport property line should be linked to a value equivalent to the local land rate should those access points not be extinguishable.
Commissioner Thurman added that §21, part 1311 noted that this portion might be mute if the airport sponsor (in this case the Port of Orcas) does not have direct control.
Commissioner McCoy stated that the port and public participation during the adoption of the airport overlay district created land use restrictions, but that the adoption by the SJC Planning Dept meant that the county and not the port had jurisdiction over land use outside the fence.
Commissioner Edwards noted that inaction on the part of the port had been tolerated by the FAA, and urged a continuation of such inaction.
Thurman suggested that the port 'go it alone' (without FAA participation) as the rules may change again.
Commissioner Hopkins opined that the port had two options (settle with the FAA or go it alone), but that there was a responsibility of commissioners to the airport as an entity, and to the community as a whole, and that during a time of disaster, the airport would become more important than ever.
Thurman added that perhaps there exists a misconception re the power of the Ferris deed which needs to be clarified.
Eimers, in responding to an aforementioned 'good neighbor' comment from a previous meeting, noted that the neighbors 'perhaps aren't as good as they could be.
Hopkins added that the commissioners represent more than just the neighbors, noting that members of the general public have been notable by their lack of interest/participation. He stated that the port seems to have the two options mentioned previously, neither of which are palatable. Hopkins added that the commissioners’ responsibilities are to the island as a whole, not just to immediate neighbors, and that to date, the concerns had been only the relations to the FAA and neighboring parcels and that all factors needed consideration.
Edwards wished the FAA to 'just leave us alone'.
Eimers stated that until the 20-year 'sunset' dates pass, trying to divest the port from the FAA would prove difficult. One major question which remains unanswered is whether the port has the ability to charge abutters a fee.
Edwards added that since the FAA has not pursued the through-the-fence issue to this time, time is on the port's side, and with a change in administration at the local NW Mountain Division, things could change again. Eimers noted that that would be wishful thinking.
Thurman wondered whether there might be a release of the grant assurances on the Larson property, which would then leave the port free to develop that property based on community needs and interests. He then distributed copies of a revised resolution, which noted that the FAA was a party to some problems which the port was now charged with resolving: 1)putting the fence around properties in Aeroview and Grasylvania; 2)approving construction of a SFD (single-family dwelling) attached to a hangar, after having submitted a 7460-1 form; 3)approving a midfield taxiway access for the Lantec properties.
McCoy wondered whether, if the resolution were adopted at face value, what would be the situation twenty years down the road.
Eimers stated that he would be seeking additional opinion of the entire process with Frank Chmelik, the attorney who had been consulted previously regarding the Ferris deed language.
McCoy wondered whether a commissioner subcommittee could be charged with looking at the financial consequences of taking one position or another (with or without the FAA; addition of fees, etc.)
Eimers ended this portion of the discussion by stating that the minimum response would be to not respond to the FAA, but noted there were still the two watershed issues mentioned previously, and that he would be speaking with Frank Chmelik early the following week. Eimers then opened the agenda for public access time.
Public access time
Paul Vierthaler noted that the abutters had indeed been good neighbors and that none of them had received a free ride. If the port chose option Y (proceeding without FAA funding), then capital projects could be accomplished more cheaply, and there would be increased donations in the form of donated labor, etc.
Bob Waunch spoke to the hypocrisy of the FAA, in that if the port couldn't control the land use outside the fence, then (according to his reading of the new compliance manual) the port doesn't have to be in compliance.
Evelyn Fuchser wondered what had become of her marked-up revised original resolution #1, and stated that the port could comply if not forced to comply with the cookie-cutter approach being proposed. She noted that aircraft parked on personal property do not need to pay 'moorage' fees.
Eric Gourley stated that if the FAA finds the port out of compliance, the port could still maintain a good and safe airport, and recommended that the port separate itself from FAA bondage.
Richard Bach noted that there is a difference between policy and regulations. In his mind, policy is 'bendable', and should be in the case of the port v. the FAA. If abutters end up paying a fee, then their volunteerism would disappear.
John Howlind stated that there was 'plenty of time for war later', but wondered about the impact on the future of the airport.
Tyler Otten stated that the Ferris deed preceded the participation of the FAA, and wondered whether landing fees might not be instituted for all those who use the airport.
Dick Griot asked whether there was any guarantee that future FAA funds would be available to the port.
Eimers noted that the commissioners are already down the negotiation path, and that the FAA's charge was to create a plan that is acceptable to the FAA and good faith effort toward fulfilling that plan. Eimers said he would investigate getting releases from past grants.
Cathy Vierthaler asked the commissioners to read that short document that was distributed to them.
Paul Vierthaler noted that he had spent an hour on the phone with the AOPA representative for through-the fence matters, and they are still working on possible changes with the FAA. He added that this was a forward-looking document, and that the situation of at least Grasylvania was unique. He also added that the FAA had never asked any past-awarded grant monies be refunded.
Thurman added that the commissioners wished to give the property owners some certainty.
Next Meeting and Adjournment
The next regular meeting of the Commission was scheduled for 7:00P.M., November 12, 2009 in the Port conference room. This meeting was also scheduled to be the public hearing for and adoption of the 2010 budget, and would be a busy meeting.
____________________________________
Ulanah McCoy, Commissioner and Secretary
Prepared by
_____________________________
Bea vonTobel, Airport Manager