Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee Interim Report 11/13/95 In making this interim report we decided to begin by reviewing our old priority list for the urgency of the issues, as determined by a vote of the Ad Hoc Committee on 7/23/95. Since that meeting we have gotten further input from you on issues and have put getting a Federal grant to help with the fuel tank situation high in priority. We are also mindful that you asked us to produce a package of spending controls and revenue enhancements, including a solution to the hangar problem, and that you have asked us to suggest how an "official" committee may be formed. We have added Susan Winding, a nonpilot neighbor of the airport, to the voting committee. We would like guidence from you regarding your priorities for our future work. airport manager .28 (most urgent) airport budget .31 noise abatement .35 fuel tanks .48 mechanic availability .52 fate of private hangars .69 hangar availability .73 grading/weed control .78 weather station .82 instrument approach .86 movie company use 1.07 airline use 1.26 governance 1.42 501c3 corporation 1.68 airport maintenance 2.31 cardlock fuel 2.88 jet fuel 8.25 (least urgent) airport manager --------------- This issue is one we consider most urgent but that we have no control over. We have taken no action on this. In the 9/18/95 Planning, Transportation, Health and Welfare Committee meeting, Mr. Campbell said that he has sent a modified contract to Andy. This has still not been received by him. We are not hopeful about a happy resolution of this situation. airport budget -------------- We reported to you on 9/17 on the day use fee proposal. We have made several proposals to Public Works regarding cost cutting at the airport and have asked to be placed "in the loop" on future expenditures. A volunteer crew painted the bathroom doors recently. We notice that the airport office's exterior paint is very weathered in spots and would like to seek permission for a volunteer crew to repaint the outside of the building. We have some suggestions for increasing airport revenue (e.g., an air camping facility), but they need further research and community comment. Our short term budget work has been pushed to the back burner temporarily while we completed the noise abatement procedure and work on the Federal grant issues. We have been learning about how to generate a Capital Improvement Plan and obtain Federal funding. An inital report on this was mailed to you on 10/28 and this is discussed further under the "fuel tank" heading below. noise abatement --------------- We have held several committee meetings to work on this issue. We have held a well attended community meeting and produced a consensus noise abatement procedure that was mailed to you and to the FAA on 11/3/95. If you approve this and the FAA has no objections, we recommend immediate implementation. We can produce a simple flyer to hand out and mail to pilots. If you authorize us, we can write to the authors of pilot guides to notify them, or the airport manager can be asked to do this. We believe that Public Works prefers to produce the signs for each end of the runway, but we can offer a volunteer to do this if you prefer. The various airport manager actions will need to be initiated by Public Works, if they concurr. There still is a sense that the question of straight out vs left turn departures is not "finally" settled and there may be some fine tuning of the procedure after it has been in place for a while. fuel tanks ---------- We got direction from you to make this a high priority issue, particularly investigating the possibility that a Federal paving grant might pay some or all of the costs associated with tank removal. The short answer is yes, but we have a lot of work to do. The FAA wants us to modify the Airport Layout Plan, and they want us to carefully consider who the future users of the airport will be when we do this. The result will be decisions regarding runway and taxiway width and thickness and the size of the Runway Protection Zones. After the ALP has been modified, we have to secure the Runway Protection Zones before the FAA will consider other grants. This can be done by easements or in fee simple. We are investigating the current ownership of the land in question. When the Airport Master Plan was developed, it recommended that land swaps be done to trade land South of the airport for the "clear zones", now called Runway Protection Zones. The FAA will also entertain a fencing grant as a first priority item, to reduce runway incursions and vandelism. Once these are taken care of, they will consider paving grants for the runway, taxiways, additional tiedown spaces and additional hangar spaces. They do insist on examining our pavement maintenance records to reassure themselves that we have been doing adequate maintenance. The ALP modifications will have to clearly state where the fuel tank(s) will move to. They also will need details on where the tanks and plumbing are now located. Although a paving grant will pay for tank removal, backfill and paving, it will not pay for remediation. The FAA requires us to have a remediation plan in place before they will begin. The FAA will not pay for tank reinstallation. There is no leak detector on the fuel tank product pressure feed lines. I understand that adding such detectors was suggested some time ago. We now know that there has been some leakage. The product pressure feed line for the main 12,000 gallon tank failed its annual test last Wednesday. The leak has been stopped by removing that tank from service until the defective valve is replaced, but an unknown amount of fuel has leaked into the ground. This is not good news. Pete Halstead asked me to research State funding for remditation and that will happen soon. The next steps, as we see them, are to continue research and hold a couple of more committee meetings to gather data for a community meeting on future uses of the airport. Then we need to reach a community consensus and modify the Airport Layout Plan. We need direction from you. Should we proceed with this process? mechanic availability --------------------- We also feel helpless to do anything about this issue. It remains a very high priority for users of the airport. fate of private hangars ----------------------- I am submitting a spreadsheet produced by Charlie Meinershagen's telephone survey of 30 airports regarding private hangar policies. This is the supporting detail for the summary data presented on 10/16/95. We have delayed further work on this issue while focussing on the issues listed above. This remains a very serious concern of airport users. It is also a key part of the budget problem - private hangar fees account for about 25% of the total airport operating revenue. hangar availability ------------------- The FAA has indicated that they would be willing to entertain a grant application to fund bridging the ditch in one place, doing grading and paving of taxiways to enable to development of more hangars. See the discussion under "fuel tanks" for the various precursors of such a grant. We have delayed further work on this issue while focussing on the issues listed above. This remains a very serious concern of airport users. grading/weed control -------------------- We settled this in our 7/10/95 report - we recommend no further grading. We would like to research appropriate plants to be used as ground cover. weather station (AWOS) --------------- The FAA Airports office would be willing to fund the installation of an AWOS, as a slightly lower priority than paving, but they will not fund maintenance and operating expenses. We are researching those and will have a report soon. instrument approach ------------------- The FAA Flight Procedures office is willing to develop a non-precision GPS approach for Little River if we: - provide a letter of authorization - provide a statement of no environmental impact - provide a means of supplying the altimeter setting. A precision GPS approach will probably not be available until about the year 2000. At that time, we would need to have secured the proper size Runway Protection Zone and we may be required to point to a commercial user such as Ameriflight, Fed Ex or some other light package freight hauler. GPS instrument approaches do not require ground equipment beyond a means of providing the altimeter setting. The only other costs associated with an instrument approach is the cost of securing the Runway Protection Zone appropriate to the type of approach. A non-precision approach would help with landing when the clouds are relatively high (over 400 feet above the ground) and visibility is relatively good (one mile). During the summer it is common for the ceiling and visibility to be lower, requiring a precision approach. If we proceed with a Federal Capital Improvement Plan, we need to decide now what type of instrument approach we want in the year 2000. This will determine the Runway Protection Zone size. The current Airport Master Plan calls for a precision approach. This needs community discussion. Local pilots badly want a precision approach since this is needed to safely navigate the coastal fog. Local residents have concerns about the possible implications of an instrument approach which need to be throughly discussed. movie company use ----------------- Our 7/10/95 report pretty much wrapped this up. Movie companies can use the airport as it is, we don't need to get Part 139 certification back. If we want to encourage movie company use, the area should be registered with a database maintained by the industry. airline use ----------- We have not yet further researched this. governance ---------- We have not yet further researched alternatives to the current airport governance. It is possible that a change in governance would make it easier for users of the airport to take responsibility for both income and expenses at the airport (balancing the budget). 501c3 corporation ----------------- A separate group has formed to look into the formation of a 501(c)(3) tax exempt charitable corportation to help raise funds for the airport. So far we have pledges for a few thousand dollars. airport maintenance ------------------- Our work on the Federal Capital Improvement Plan may lead to funding for major maintenance such as paving. We have begun working with Public Works to do volunteer maintenance work on the airport and hope to lower maintenance costs. We would like to be "in the loop" on future decisions regarding airport maintenance expenditures, in the hope that we can help reduce costs. cardlock fuel ------------- If the fuel tanks are moved, it would be a good time to install a card lock fuel system. We have seen prices in the $15,000 dollar range for such equipment. jet fuel -------- There is general agreement that although the sale of jet fuel would increase airport revenue, we should not do it because it would attract jets and helicopters, which airport neighbors consider undesirable. Susan Winding's issues ---------------------- Susan Winding lives northwest of the runway, next to the pond closest to Runway 11. When the clear zone (now called Runway Protection Zone) for the Runway 11 approach was cleared by a conservation camp crew several years ago, a narrow band of trees was left next to the pond, at Susan's request. Since then, storms have caused many of the trees to fall into the pond and others are in danger of falling in the next storm. It seems that the removal of the other trees also removed a windbreak essential to the continued health of the remaining trees. The committee now recommends that the remaining trees, including those that are down, be removed and burned when a conservation camp crew is next on the airport. Some of the downed trees are as much as eight inches in diameter, so this work will probably involve equipment to pull the trees over the rough ground, away from the pond. Susan is also concerned about the quality of the water in her well, which has deteriorated greatly since the trees were cut and extensive grading was done. We recommend waiting for the results of more research on her well.