SOUTH ST. PAUL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FLEMING FIELD MASTER PLAN ADVISORY GROUP MEETING #2 Thursday, May 2 nd, 2013 South St. Paul Municipal Airport Meeting Room 4:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. MEETING NOTES The purpose of the meeting notes is to supplement the meeting presentation and handouts. Attendees John Sachi, City of South St. Paul Glenn Burke, City of South St. Paul Allan Hunting, Inver Grove Heights City Planner Lori Hanson, SSP City Council member Joel Ludwigson, Airport Advisory Board Charlie Wiplinger, Wipaire Gordon Nelson, FAA Minneapolis ADO Gina Mitchell, FAA Minneapolis ADO Deb Sorensen, MnDOT Office of Aeronautics Cole Hartfiel, Bolton & Menk Marcus Watson, Bolton & Menk Steve Reckinger, Airport Advisory Board (Not present) Peter Hellegers, City of South St. Paul, Planner (Not present) Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council (Not present) 1. Review Project Status Marcus Watson led the meeting. The project status was reviewed. Marcus highlighted that the Master Plan project is roughly 50% through its schedule now that the Inventory, User Survey, Forecasts and are completed and the Facility Requirements started. Marr Arnold Planning is continuing work on the airport business plan to compare airports similar to Fleming Field, do an analysis on Fleming Field and its financials, and make recommendations in the next few months. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Page 2 The team will also complete the Aeronautical Survey and upload the survey data into the FAA system. The next step is the alternatives analysis, and it is the most time consuming portion of the project to identify, refine, evaluate, and select an alternative with various project meetings. The next MPAG meeting will likely be in towards the end of June. The project workflow chart shows that the alternatives process will begin where options are put onto paper. More analysis and MPAG input is needed to clearly establish a recommended plan for the airport. Input will also include reviewing the feasibility of the options and obtaining public input on the alternatives. 2. Review Aviation Forecasts The aviation forecasts were developed by Bolton & Menk based on local, State, and FAA data for the next 20 years (Master Planning horizon). The data included information from the FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), the draft Minnesota State Aviation System Plan (SASP), population and employment data, as well as other data from both MAC and non MAC area airports. Charts based on the forecasted data were presented showing based aircraft and annual aircraft operations. The forecasts were approved for project use by the FAA. The forecasts reviewed shows based aircraft increasing from 261 to 363 in the next 20 years and annual operations (takeoffs and landings) increasing from 60,000 to 87,500 over the same time period. The number of based aircraft was confirmed with Glenn Burke based on local records. The critical aircraft the airport ideally should plan for is a turboprop or business jet of FAA Design Code B II. These aircraft types fly into the airport presently. The charts presented produced a brief discussion. It was noted FAA TAF data typically shows little to no growth. A drop in the historical based aircraft may have come from data that wasn t updated until recently with the use of FAA s basedaircraft.com database therefore correcting the data. Glenn noted a number of aircraft winter elsewhere and are therefore not included in the based aircraft calculation. They are, however, counted in the operations forecasts, with a smaller impact than an aircraft based for the full year. The closure of the Crystal Airport (MAC owned facility) was discussed, and questioned whether it was considered in the forecast. Gordon Nelson and Gina Mitchell said there wasn t a closure planned in the imminent future. Stagnant growth in hangar construction at Airlake and Lake Elmo have spread the activity to other airports including Fleming Field and this is expected to continue through the short term until these airports open new hangar areas to development. Operational growth is steady for the first five years at Fleming Field and will increase into the future. It was noted, that, for an airport with only one runway, 60,000 operations and more than 200 based aircraft is considered healthy activity for an airport such as this. Marcus then explained critical aircraft and their impact on the airport. The critical aircraft is an aircraft or family of aircraft that have at least 500 operations (takeoffs or landings). The current
Page 3 critical aircraft family is FAA Design Code B II aircraft. Although jets have landed at SGS, this is primarily made up of turboprop aircraft; Glenn noted these aircraft fly in up to 3 4 times a week. There was further discussion later about the facility needs surrounding the critical aircraft types. 3. Identify Facility Requirements Marcus explained the facility requirements specify the FAA and State design standards based on the current and forecasted critical aircraft and whether the current facilities can meet the standards. He stated this step is to demonstrate what issues and discrepancies current exist, and not how to fix them. The alternatives process will attempt to address the issues identified. This sparked a discussion based on the critical aircraft identified earlier. It was mentioned safety areas, such as wingtip clearances, need to be met, and this is based on aircraft wingspan. Cost was a large issue for the next part of the discussion, which was brought up primarily to advise the MPAG that this will be an important topic when City Council or the public are involved. It was first brought up that larger aircraft typically require more stringent safety areas, approaches, and protection zones. John Sachi asked why the critical aircraft couldn t be considered something lower than B II. This was to compare the benefits and costs of making large changes for only two percent of the operating aircraft at the airport. Why not restrict it to smaller aircraft and lower the costs of maintaining the airport? It was confirmed the design code is a choice by the airport, and does not need to be the aircraft exceeding the 500 operations threshold, or in other words the airport can design the airport to a lower standard than B II, if it so chooses. Representatives of the FAA remarked there are already forecasted operations exceed the threshold for this type of aircraft. It was also noted the Large aircraft designation (greater than 12,500 lbs.) is primarily used to determine pavement strength. It was noted the ALP says the runway is for B II classification and small aircraft (12,500 lbs or less), but the airport is currently published as large. Changing it to be designed for small aircraft means any large aircraft needing to use the airport must first get prior permission from the airport to land (such as the B 25 based at Fleming Field). This also lead to a question on whether the FAA would participate in funding if the airport is designing to a lower standard than critical design aircraft that is exceeding the 500 operations threshold (the pavement would be maintained to runway standard noted on the ALP unless it costs less to maintain the existing pavement section). It was noted that a small aircraft classification will require less airspace area and therefore may lower the cost to comply with those approaches, safety areas, and protection zones. Marcus stated this decision will have implications on how the airport alternatives will be developed; alternatives will review different existing airport design code options (B I vs. B II, small vs. large aircraft runway, approach type implications). No decision was made at the meeting on the runway classification it would be evaluated in the alternatives. When the discussion ended, the topic went back to the facility requirements. Marcus discussed the objectives the MnDOT SASP has for the airport. Fleming Field is listed as an Intermediate airport and is recommended to have a Non Precision Instrument Approach (NPA) with Vertical
Page 4 Guidance. Fleming Field currently has an NPA utilizing GPS technology but no vertical guidance. Marcus noted the only cost to the Sponsor to develop a GPS approach is to remove obstructions. No new ground based equipment is required. The Metropolitan Council s Twin Cities Aviation System Plan (2009) airport classifications differ from the SASP. Fleming Field is a Minor I Airport. The airports typically represented in this category are of FAA Design Code B I and have Non Precision Instrument Approaches. It was brought up again that perhaps SGS does not need to be B II if the Met Council Twin Cities Aviation System Plan (2009) does not expect it to be B II. It was noted that FAA design code A II aircraft are already landing at SGS on a consistent basis (Cessna 208 Caravan s from Wipaire). Ideally Fleming Field should remain a B II airport to accommodate the design code II airplanes from Wipaire as well as the design code B airplanes that operate at the airport currently (i.e. twin engine aircraft). The FAA s design code system was then explained as B representing the aircraft approach speed, and II representing the wingspan of the aircraft. Marcus reiterated that options and impact implications would be explored in the alternatives portion of the project. Runway length was then discussed by Marcus. He explained the computations to determine the FAA recommended length and said that they are recommendations and not requirements. It was noted some lengths are simply not possible at this airport. It was mentioned the airport width is currently 100 feet, and despite the recommendation for 75 feet, it typically costs more to reduce the width to 75 feet than to maintain the current width. It was also explained the taxiway widths more than satisfy current requirements. It was mentioned the airport should consider adding Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) to the runway ends to help identify the runway ends in poor visibility or at night. REILs are flashing white strobe lights activated by pilots to help them identify the runway at night or during low visibility conditions. It was explained by the City that the airport did have REILs at one time, but they were taken out by the former airport manager one to two years after being installed. It was stated they were difficult to maintain, and it bothered people, so they are unwilling to reinstall them unless forced to do so. The utility infrastructure is currently in place. Airspace and Land Use elements were discussed next. Marcus and FAA staff explained the FAA has a new Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) interim policy that expects Sponsor s to own the RPZ in fee and if the RPZ location or size changes then an Alternatives Analysis needs to be completed to demonstrate that there are no other feasible alternatives to develop a safer RPZ. The MnDOT Clear Zones ideally should be owned in fee but these are on a case by case basis as it can become an enormous expense. Airport zoning is currently in place to protect these surfaces from further impediments but if the runway configuration changes then the airport zoning ordinance should be updated. The runway classifications were explained. The airport is now configured to accommodate large aircraft; the pavement strength is greater than 12,500 pounds. It allows the airport to meet demand but the shallower slopes add more obstructions the airport needs to mitigate. Changing
Page 5 it to be configured for small aircraft, therefore, may limit the airport from accommodating demand, but reduces the amount of obstructions that need to be mitigated. Maps of the airspace were shown to explain the obstructions that currently exist in and around the airport. Some obstructions were not a hazard to airspace but these are identified on a caseby case basis. Land use surfaces such as the RPZ and CZ are designed to protect persons and property on the ground. User surveys show that airport users want instrument approaches to both runway ends (only Runway 34 currently), but it is preferred by FAA not have one on the Runway 16 end as the flight path would track over the St. Paul Downtown Airport. Marcus explained by the end of the planning period, 102 additional based aircraft will be requiring storage at the airport. It was noted there are 44 lots on the west side of the airport, 4 of which are currently occupied, that can house approximately 2 2.5 aircraft each, satisfying the need if a T Hangar is built to accommodate the remaining aircraft. The plan is to maximize what is available first, before expanding any other areas if possible. Support facilities were discussed, such as the need for a transient hangar to store aircraft overnight in inclement weather. Both businesses on the airport are full and cannot accommodate overnight aircraft. A transient hangar may be tough to justify as the revenue may not justify the high initial cost. These hangars may demand $100 for each aircraft per night. Another requirements summary table was shown and a do nothing alternative was discussed. It is a decision between what is needed and what is realistic considering the tradeoffs between the alternatives. 4. Discuss Initial Alternatives Marcus explained that we are just beginning to develop alternatives based on the facility requirements discussed today. The handout was referenced to obtain input from the group about how to best evaluate alternatives. The four broad groups based on the original project goals include Safety, Operational Performance, Financial, and Compatibility. The MPAG agreed that realistic implementation is very important. Marcus later indicated that this would be broken out as a fifth evaluation group. The stoplight matrix will be used as a broad way to review alternatives. The full analysis will identify quantifiable impacts such as cost. It was noted the MPAG may want to prioritize the items in the stoplight matrix to determine where their decision lies. It was unanimously agreed upon that safety was the number one priority. No other priorities were discussed. Potential development alternative graphics were shown to the MPAG. Alternative ideas were briefly discussed, and it was noted that any changes to the runway end would modify the location of the RPZ and it may impact additional areas. A future parallel taxiway to the west will be evaluated but it is very close to a residential area. A re configured terminal area utilizing space to the west was reviewed at the MPAG agreed that this should be an option especially if it created
Page 6 additional hangar development space. Lori Hanson reminded the group that a constraint for one purpose may be an opportunity for another (referring to the terminal building and site lines). 5. Identify Next Steps The direction gathered from this meeting will help develop a set of alternatives. Next steps include the consultant formulating initial alternatives to present to the City, MnDOT Aeronautics and FAA for initial review and feedback. Alternatives will be refined and an impact analysis performed. A set of alternatives will be developed for MPAG review and consideration. The next MPAG meeting is anticipated to be in late June. This will be a meeting where the most MPAG input is needed.