11/16/09 Hafferman/Background on Airport ExpansionBACKGROUND ON AIRPORT EXPANSION
T/D S
One of my first meetings as a council member in 2002 was on the airport EA. At that time the people
whom I heard seemed to be evenly split between those who were in favor of improving the existing
airport and those who wanted to get rid of it. My stance was that it was dedicated as an airport and
unless conditions change it should be used as an airport.
I favored the actions of previous Councils to finance the need improvements to the airport by selling
approximately $1 million of existing airport land. I was in favor because of what was in the EA, the
document that is essentially law. (read again the important length — EA pg 1-5).
Two of the very first steps required by FAA were mitigation of KGEZ towers and purchase and lease
all land necessary before FAA would release any money. That was 2002. We are still waiting.
It wasn't until about 4 years ago (Patrick's reception) that I learned there were certain people hell-bent
on extending the runway NOW to 4700' Totally against the EA. That's when I changed my stance.
In the last 2-3 years, listening to citizens, who now know there is behind the scenes plan to increase the
runway length to 4700', oppose spending any money on the airport if the runway is lengthened.
With the so -call noise ordinance, community action against airport expansion galvanized. Citizens saw
the ordinance as a back -door effort to exempt the airport from the INCREASING noise problem.
Since that time citizens have been bringing forward information that should have been given to Council
members and citizens. Issues I certainly didn't know existed. Such as:
If we accept FAA money the citizens lose control of their airport property and cannot enact
such laws regulating noise and type of operation. (read DIL article)
Apparently there are 39 FAA stipulation that have never been presented to the Council
Land owners, who we were told, were willing to sell had NOT reached an agreement -- the
Monk property.
This project has been strangely managed since about 2002. And here we go again, being asked to create
more costs which may end up on the backs of taxpayers..In a letter dated February 20, 2009, from
Robert Peccia & Associates, with regard to a new EA, is a statement to wit: "It would make sense to do
this re-evaluation as soon as the radio „towers are mitigated." Have the towers begnitigated? What did
we pay for that consultation. Will we ignore other consutations that don't fit with what the controlling
members of the Council want?