COUNCIL APPROVES COMPROMISE PROPOSAL ON AIRPORT
July 27, 2010, Venice, Florida
The Venice City Council approved, today, a $10-15 million airport proposal based on negotiations between the City and the FAA. The compromise proposal promised to be the basis for an updated Airport Layout Plan to be approved by the Council and then submitted to the FAA, essentially ending a multi-year process which divided elements of the community and the Council and which can put airport funding back on track for runway rehabilitation and other changes.
That is the lead paragraph, covering the facts, but it does not reflect, even in a small way, the hundreds of hours of citizen involvement, council meetings, consultant work, FAA staff involvement, and the pain and stress of coming to the vote to develop a new Airport Layout Plan (ALP) as part of bringing an Airport Master Plan up to date. Nor does it involve the personal price paid by Council Members and citizens as they struggled to solve complicated problems and inevitably, some were disappointed by a compromise proposal that did not satisfy all of their wishes.
The day that began with airport deliberations starting at 9:00 a.m., broke for a brief lunch in the City Hall and continued through an afternoon regular Council Meeting, where Council Members also had to make a difficult decision about the millage rates on property that affect every resident and must be set to create a budget for the next year. The decision involved the setting the level of City services, the amounts of reductions in budget and personnel, the demand for reserve funds to meet the deficit caused by declining property values. Today’s decision set a maximum millage level. Workshop Council meetings in two days, and public budget meetings in September will be held before the final decisions are reached by Council.
By 5 p.m. Council members were tired and defused emotions by saying, with self-deprecating humor, that even adults get “cranky” by the late afternoon of 8 hour, tension-filled days. Council Member Sue Lang, admitted she was tired after not sleeping well last night. I understood, because before meetings involving such serious decisions I have trouble sleeping as well. We voted differently on the plan. I imagine the two of us were not alone on Council who feel the stress of the required decisions.
I am not trying to elicit compassion for Council Members, but the point of this website it to give some insight, not just an inside view of issues, but some sense of the human situation. In the audience, lately, have been people who are running for office. Most have just started to come to Council meetings. If they are like I was, they feel they may be able to make different, perhaps better, decisions. My guess is they have little idea what Council members experience in their quiet deliberations.
I voted in a way that disappointed a number of friends and supporters, who hoped we would reject any solution that the FAA would approve. They felt the City could pay for the airport in the future from user fees, rents, etc. and be free to limit the airport to smaller planes and smaller jets. Nobody really knows what would happen if we tried. Would the FAA have the authority to assign the airport to others, for example the Sarasota Brandenton Airport Authority, or would they stand aside? Would they demand the $3-4 million back in recent federal aid for runway and other development? Would the City be involved in expensive and lengthy litigation? Or would the City be free to do its own thing? Could the City really afford to operate the airport and maintain it with no federal or state aid?
In the final analysis five of seven Council members decided it was time to agree to a compromise, move on, and accept federal funding in the future. They felt the future development of the airport might actually improve the situation of the residents of Gulf Shores, all but two of whom would be removed from the Runway Protection Zone. They felt the required Environmental Impact study, the changes in usable runway lengths, might help improve noise and air pollution, and, in no case, would make it worse.
Several Council members, recognizing my term coming to an end, publicly offered kind words for my efforts to try to find the best solution possible. Actually, all involved made a contribution . As I mentioned, the people who fought the hardest against the decisions to compromise, did a tremendous job on research indicating the FAA’s responsibility for the current problems. I think they helped bring about the unprecedented, (according to our consultants with more than 20 years experience), cooperation from the FAA. I can testify that the FAA agreed to remedies that I asked for three years ago, and which were rejected at that time.
While there are still details to be worked out, approvals to be gained, funding to be provided and years stretching ahead before this is accomplished, I think we are at the best place we have been in since I became interested in this issue, before I even ran for Mayor. Thanks to all who participated, whatever views they had.
Posted By Ed Martin at 9:23 PM in Category:
Inside Venice
Replies
29 Jul 2010
Ed
Thanks for your generous comments. I believe I speak on behalf of all the Council members.
28 Jul 2010
tbb
The previously rejected “remedies” that the FAA has now “agreed to” ... Are you referring to EMAS? The EMAS (if it is even funded) would NOT be employed to remove Gulf Shores homes from the RPZ. Instead it would be installed to alleviate runway concerns at the eastern end. The FAA has not really changed their position, what has changed is that the paved runway is now going to be significantly longer. The increase in traffic from larger airplanes will ultimately create significant new impacts on residences in Gulf Shores and South Venice. Attached is your summary of a discussion you had with Mr. Vernace in 2008.
Ed Martin Monday - June 9, 2008 3:28 PM
Black, Martin; citycouncil@ci.venice.fl.us; Stelzer, Lori
“In short, I took away from the conversation that the FAA was not closing the door on alternative suggestions that could be defended, etc. He did clarify that emass was generally used to date in commercial airports for RSA concerns, not "Zone" impacts and he did not think it would be applied to preserve the impact on Gulf Shores.."
28 Jul 2010
Ed
Tom, I think you may have missed the point of the EMAS. If it was at the Gulf Shores end, it would not affect the RPZ, as I wrote it is used for the Safety Area to shorten the necessary distance there.
By using EMAS at the Intracoastal Area it allows the runway to be shifted further in that direction, thereby further away from Gulf Shores. The result is 20+ houses will no longer be in a Runway Protection Zone, only two will be affected.
The runway shift to the southeast combined with pavement removal and declared distances means that planes will land and take off further from Gulf Shores and should, therefore, be higher when passing over the homes.
I know this solution is not all you wished for, but it is a clear progression from our earlier interactions with the FAA where no such proposals were considered acceptable to the agency.
28 Jul 2010
Chuck Malkerson
"Public service" is a thankless, tireless endeavor, in its best form. Those "pro" and "con" of the citizenry and the officials stuck in the middle should be thanked for every bit of energy and emotion committed to this discussion and resolution.
I am a (RPZ)property owner in Gulf Shores who has monitored every bit of the deliberations. I honestly feel as though I have had ample access to all viewpoints, and I thank you all for that. I have withheld comments or involvement because I am not there and I have felt positively enough towards those of you so involved and informed.
Welcome to democracy and compromise......we all need a bunch more and less anger for our future.
Sincerely,
Chuck Malkerson
