Jack Gallagher, Peaine Township Supervisor
September 27, 2010
In my first annual report to the public in January I addressed a number of Township issues, including those on the Public Airport. We've made some progress since then, but now face an urgent airport matter that prompts this special report. I've tried unsuccessfully to get open, informed discussion on this matter-but last month the Airport's 10-year plan was submitted to the state without board approval and public input. The plan overlooks matters of critical importance to the Island residents, both full-time and seasonal. My commitment to government transparency and my concern about the submitted 10-Year Plan gave rise to this communication.
The Airport Committee's proposed improvements seem to focus on the needs of the airport's private air carrier and private plane users. These are important considerations, but common sense says we should focus on the critical air services and protections needed by our seasonally isolated public here-those who need a public airport developed to its full and appropriate level.
What we have now is a plan designed for a Public Airport that serves only a small part of the public, and a nearby Private Airport that serves the great majority of our public. Something is wrong with this picture. Should we lose our private airport in the future, we would experience a big problem. If this possibility is overlooked and the plan goes forward as is, we could find ourselves with less effective, more costly air service, and a much higher tax burden.
The Urgency of the Matter
For four months of the year, air travel is our only lifeline here-for food, medicine, mail, emergency evacuations and other essential goods and services. Air travel is essential the rest of the year for help with the same needs and our economic wellbeing-and even then, nighttime medical evacuations are problematic. We rely on the ease and satisfaction of air travel for visitors and second-home owners whose time is precious here. Convenient air service is especially important to them-as it is to those of us who rely on their buying power and tax support. Our Public Airport is a vital public asset and needs to be treated as such.
Fortunately, we have a significant opportunity before us to improve our Public Airport. At about 3 million dollars, a 10-year plan to upgrade the Public Airport is the biggest, the most expensive and potentially the most important project Beaver Island has seen since the construction of the Emerald Isle ferry. It involves a huge infusion of federal and state money, along with an Island expenditure of about $75,000. The Public Airport will play an increasingly important role in the Island's economy far into the future-and if developed to its full and appropriate level as the state suggests-we could be eligible for regular Federal and State financial support of approximately $1,000,000 annually.
Unfortunately, the10-year development plan and request for assistance was submitted to the Michigan Aeronautics Group in August without critical review. The Plan in its present state was not reviewed or approved by the Peaine or St. James Township Boards and did not have the benefit of public input. My own review of the Plan shows it to be narrowly drawn-overlooking or ignoring the actual facts on Beaver Island air travel.
I've not been able to learn about the Airport Committee's reasoning that went into the plan-I have gathered and studied everything I could find on it. I thought the Plan would come to the Township Board before it was submitted, and I would have the chance to raise questions and make my concerns known at that time. Without that opportunity and with a fast approaching deadline for final negotiations and decisions, I am obliged to share my views through this report.
The Crux of the Matter
It is likely that the future needs of the Island will require a public airport capable of handling all Island air travel-an airport that serves all people and goods that come and go here year round. To achieve this end, the Public Airport must be developed to its full and appropriate level, and made capable of effectively handling two airlines-not one. Such development could take place over time but it must be part of our immediate and long-range plans.
Consider the following seven facts:
- The Beaver Island public is currently well served by two airports and two airlines. Both airlines offer good, safe, convenient, and cost-competitive services.
- Based on statistics in the State of Michigan 2008 Airport System Plan-the passenger volume of Island Airways is about six times greater than that of Fresh Air-and likely carries an even greater percentage of freight volume.
- Island Airways operates out of the privately owned Welke Airport and handles about 85% of the Island's air travel.
- Fresh Air operates out of our publicly owned Beaver Island Airport and handles about 15% of the Island's air travel.
- The Island's air services grew up around the Welke Airport. Its longstanding presence is now taken for granted, but the Welke Airport is private and can be sold or retired at will.
- The State of Michigan 2008 Airport System Plan advises against over-reliance on public use of private airports. Its executive summary on airport plans states that:
- Public airports in isolated areas should be developed to their full and appropriate level
- Important consideration should be given to the type of airport ownership of "public-use" airports when considering long-term viability of their public transportation.
- Publicly owned airports tend to continue functioning as airports over the long haul with a sense of stability.
- Privately owned airports are far more likely to drift into and out of public use and, consequently, are less reliable as long-term transportation resources.
- The Beaver Island 10-Year Airport Development Plan (2011-2021):
- Focuses on 15% of the Island's public air travel-and fails to consider the Island's huge reliance on a privately owned "public-use" airport.
- And it overlooks the State's advice to develop public airports in isolated areas to "their full and appropriate levels".
If the Welke Airport ceased public service and became a private-use only airport, it is unlikely anyone would come along and build another private airport for us. Obviously we (the public) would have to turn to the Island's Public Airport. Our 10-year planned investments should reflect this possibility. Our Airport Development Plans must consider and address what would be done if the privately owned "public-use" airport we now rely on so heavily were no longer available.
We could not be served as well as we are now unless Island Airways or some other Airline moved to the public airport. If they did (as Island Airways has considered) what would be the likely impact on the current Airport Layout Plan? Would the greatly increased volume affect the size and location of the runway, taxiway, aprons, terminal, and hangar space?
It is possible that the added traffic volume created by a second airline would qualify the Airport for $1,000,000 in annual government support instead of the $150,000 currently available. This raises additional questions: What other benefits could residents, visitors, and taxpayers enjoy from much higher use of the Public Airport? How would two airlines operating there improve the competitive position of each, affect their operating costs and pricing policies, and enhance access and convenience of air travel for those living and visiting here?
The Submitted Plan Neglects These Possibilities
The Airport Committee may well claim that they have taken care of this contingency. After all, they have laid out plans to increase the size of the terminal, apron area, taxi area, and parking areas. But their terminal plans show only one ticket counter, one check-in area, and no space for an airport manager. The Executive Summary of the terminal plan highlights its singular focus. It actually begins with the following statement: This report presents a concept design developed to meet the needs of the Beaver Island Township Airport to accommodate the ongoing regular flight charter services to Charlevoix provided by Fresh Air Aviation.
The lead paragraph in their case for terminal expansion reads: The existing terminal building is confined to a small area and doesn't provide sufficient space for the operations of the charter service. Baggage and freight are currently being handled in the passenger areas, and the airport board has to meet off-site because there is no space for them to meet in the existingterminal building.
The Executive Summary also says: The new terminal building design provides adequate space for the charter service's operations, provides facilities for baggage and freight handling that are accessible to passengers yet away from their waiting area� It notes: "The terminal area aircraft parking apron and ground vehicle parking areas will also need to be incrementallyexpanded in the future to accommodate existing and future demands.
The Submitted Plan Neglects the Public
The public owns its public airport--not a committee, a group of township officials, or an air service provider. The current plan neglects the public's current and future needs in favor of a private air-carrier and an Airport Committee that considers itself a Board.
There is no mention of any potential loss of the private "public-use" airport that now provides 85% of the Island's air travel. The possibility of a sudden increase in air-travel from a second air carrier-or the potential of having to accommodate five times the current use-is never mentioned. A gradual but regular increase in the services provided by Fresh Air is noted, however, which they say may later require "incremental" improvements. The Plan would better serve the 15% of the public who now use the airport, for it will surely be more comfortable. But the travel needs of the entire Island public should be more seriously addressed. After all, it is their airport and they will pay for it continuing operation.
There is no way of knowing if these factors were considered when the plan was prepared. We can only speculate from what they produced. The assumptions and thinking that went into the existing plan remain a mystery-for we are kept in the dark without records and straightforward, candid discussion. The stakes are too high to risk such a blatant oversight as might have occurred. We will all benefit greatly if we get the plan right. But we stand to suffer just as greatly if we fail to anticipate a changing future-and get it wrong.
Is There Anything We Can Do About It Now?
A sliver of hope remains. Though our concerns and requests for information and input have not been met thus far-there is a small but limited window of opportunity to correct that situation. The Michigan Aeronautics Group will meet with representatives of both Township Boards sometime between October 1 and November 30 to consider the 10-year plan submitted by the existing Airport Committee and possible changes to the plan.
Although proponents of the existing Plan call it merely a "planning tool," it is almost never changed at the state level after it is approved by the Michigan Aeronautics Group. This is a hugely important meeting and it is coming up quickly.
ACTION STEPS needed to protect our interests and prepare for the meeting with the Michigan Aeronautics Group
We must act swiftly. Before the meeting with the Michigan Aeronautics Group, we need to examine, review, and discuss the current Plan so we can be as knowledgeable as possible when recommending revisions. Our actions necessarily require that we become informed, attend meetings, and speak up.
- First, we need to individually and independently gather, study, and share whatever information we can on the 10-Year Plan. My views are expressed here. I am willing to collect and share others' views as well, so feel free to contact me however you choose.
- Second, we need to meet for an "Airport Stakeholders' Meeting" to discuss the Airport Plan and how it will likely meet the Island's needs over the next decade. We will have a professional facilitator to assist at the meeting if at all possible. I will reserve the Peaine Township Hall for this meeting.
- Third, there will be a Joint Township Board meeting scheduled with Mead and Hunt (the Airport Consulting firm) to present the plan as submitted and its underlying rationale to the Boards and the public. We must be prepared by this time to ensure that our questions and concerns are heard. It will be critical that attendance is high and voices are heard.
- Fourth, a Peaine Township Board meeting will follow to review, modify, and approve the plan. You will need to participate actively in this meeting to ensure that thoughtful public views are heard. This meeting will also include the appointment of township representatives to meet with the Michigan Aeronautics Group for finalizing the airport plan for the Michigan Aeronautics Commissionââ?¬â??who ultimately makes the final decision.
The 10-Year Development Plan: A Summary
Some "friends of the airport" distributed a flier on the plan this past spring. It contained some significant inaccuracies and misinformation and was more of an effort to get support for the plan than to inform the public. The September issue of the Beaver Beacon had a half-page article on "THE TEN-YEAR PLAN", listing year-by-year improvements from the proposal submitted to the Michigan Aeronautics Group, their likely costs, and a comment on each. But both of these efforts were limited to one-way communication. Neither addressed key questions and issues. Here are the proposed improvements.
- 2011-Construct new terminal ($740,000)
- 2012-Create new access road and parking lot-gravel ($270,000)
- 2013-Expand airport apron ($240,000) and pave gravel parking lot ($270,000)
- 2014-Purchase tractor and snow-blower ($150,000)
- 2015-Expand fueling facility ($140,000)
- 2016-Carryover funds for future projects ($24,000)
- 2017-Security fencing ($18,000)
- 2018-Storage Hangar for itinerant aircraft ($300,000)
- 2019-Pave crosswind runway ($350,000)
- 2020-Carryover funds for future projects ($150,000)
- 2021-Construct a parallel taxiway ($510,000)
The 10-Year Development Plan: Some Key Questions
- Why was the current plan framed with the possibility of passenger and freight volumes for only one airline? Was this an oversight or were their credible reasons?
- The 10-year plan doesn't address the problem of deer on the runway. How should that be addressed? Since the emergency medical flight hit a deer at night, the air carrier has refused to land at the airport after dark. Air-evacuation services should be available day and night. How can the deer problem be corrected so that all Island residents get our 24-hour emergency services back? What would be the costs? Can this "missing element" of the plan be added in and given priority? (Note: the current "security fencing" improvement listed above is to keep people out-not deer)
- A new terminal design and construction is given the highest priority of all investments-should this be the case? In 2008, the Airport Committee formally approved a terminal design for only one airline-that was for Fresh Air Aviation only. Don't we need more thought on designing a terminal for future air travel that would accommodate more than the passenger/freight capacity of one airline? Would we lose available funds for postponing construction or rearranging the developmental priorities? For example, could deer deterrents be undertaken first and the terminal second without funding penalties? Should increased use of the Public Airport qualify us for substantial annual support that might possibly offset the penalty costs of a delay?
- Is federal and state funding available for the operating costs of a new and expanded terminal and airport? An expanded public airport will cost more to operate. How have these expenses been estimated, and what effect are they likely to have on Beaver Island taxpayers if further outside help is not forthcoming? Though a public facility, the airport needs to be run like a good business, which suggests that the operating costs and means of paying for the improved facilities must be projected before the investment is agreed to. If these costs will increase our taxes, do we know the likely amount? Improved services may be worth the investment, but the public needs to know since they will pay the bills.
- How will the opportunity for public input be assured in the short time that is remaining? The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration considers public input essential to sound airport master planning-as do other public agencies. When our school was planned, the public was welcomed and given significant, multiple opportunities to get information and have input-it came out well. If a terminal is to be built in 2011 with key issues still unresolved, what is the plan and timeline for public hearings and review of the various plans and designs? What effect would the public input have?
The 10-Year Development Plan: Your Comments, Please
People have told me they are skeptical about whether their voices will matter at this point, and I say that we must still try. The issue is too important to let slide. But importance is not the only reason your Board and the public needs to be informed and have input in our airport planning, so is quality. Democracies build open and multiple review procedures into decision-making to limit the concentration of power with a few-they know that all of us are smarter than a few of us.
Our committees and sub-committees are not put in place to replace decision-making at other levels. They are put in place to share the workload and increase the critical thought and review that goes into decisions. We who are elected and appointed to serve the public are accountable to the public. We must listen to one another, respond to responsible questions, and make suggestions. No plan developed by a few, no matter how good, can ever be improved without good critical feedback. We need public involvement to make our airport plans the best they can be.
The issues and questions raised here relate to matters we need to know more about. I look forward to hearing from you. We all want to greatly improve not greatly diminish the quality of our air travel and economy here. We need to resolve the issues quickly because the outcome will likely be determined before year's end. It will affect you, your family, your business, possibly your taxes and the wellbeing of our Island community. We need your best thinking and encouragement to get it right.
Your thoughts and feedback on these matters is critical. People will have other questions-or responses to the questions I've raised-as well as added information. I encourage your candid and constructive suggestions. I will share what I know and learn. Please feel free to contact me via any of the following communication routes:
- on the Forum;
- in writing to me at P.O. #255
- via e-mail ( johngallagher@tds.net )
- by phone at 448-2389 (the Peaine Hall) or 448-2441 (my home).
- by meeting with me during my office hours (Fridays 1:00-5:00 p.m.) at the Hall, or any time we can arrange a time and place of mutual convenience.
Last January my report to the public focused on the lack of a legal governing agreement for joint operation of the airport-and related questions about the airport committee's authority and obligation to record and share essential information on finances, plans, and activities with the Peaine Board. As it turned out-the joint governance problems were twofold.
We do not comply with Michigan law, and each township is tied to a different governing agreement. St. James uses a 1983 Resolution as its basis for governing, while Peaine is bound to a 1993 Ordinance. The two documents differ and prescribe incompatible courses-one has an airport committee that is part ofthe township board, while the other is apart from it. The two documents differ on the proper authority and involvement of our elected board in airport decision-making. This must be resolved before any plans can move ahead. Here's why:
Governance issues and complications addressed since the January report
The townships received advice from their shared attorney. He advised:
�the situation should not remain as it is, given the inconsistency of the documents and the lack of a cohesive organization that operates under the statutes of Michigan law.
Work on a new governing agreement has gone on over the past eight months-interrupted by Peaine Township's decision to retain a new attorney. (Note: The details and reasons for this action are described in the Frequently Asked Questions--FAQ's).
But the challenge is that the Townships must now agree on the structure of a new governing entity for the Airport-in substantial detail. To operate a jointly owned airport, Michigan law requires townships to forge and reach written agreement on many key issues. No such agreement exists here-not in the Peaine approved Ordinance of 1993, or in the 1983 agreement St. James follows. The key issues go beyond the make-up of a committee.
Agreements must delineate the committee's authority, responsibility, rules of operation, matters that require Township Board approval, financial agreements between the townships (such as who authorizes contracts and commits to financial obligations, who authorizes payments, who approves a budget, how the tax rate is determined, and so on.) The method of resolving disagreements must also be included, along with other policies and procedures.
The two elected Township boards set the tax rate for the airport, and until the governance is settled legally the state and federal government may be reluctant and possibly unwilling to move ahead on the entire project. We must not let this happen. We need to build a solid, clear foundation that will eliminate the uncertainty that currently exists and the unnecessary and divisive disagreements we have experienced.
Last week on September 22nd, after considering the pros and cons of Michigan's three legal approaches to Airport Governance (submitted by Peaine's new lawyer) the Peaine Board unanimously selected the "intergovernmental agreement" option. With the best interests of the Township and Island in mind, the Board directed its lawyer to draft a "governing document" for the Board's review. After the Peaine Board's review of the draft, the two township attorneys will begin working together to reconcile any areas of potential disagreement. A joint township meeting will be held when the townships approach general agreement and are ready for public input to help identify and resolve any remaining issues before formal approval. All of these meetings will be held in full compliance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act.
Eminent domain proceedings for increased Airport property
Last January questions about airport authority came to a head over pending decisions on obtaining greater acreage for airport expansion. The issue concerned eminent domain proceedings (a "taking" of some of our residents' property) and the responsibility of the Township Boards to be fully informed on the need and legality of any such decision.
After getting and studying more information, the Townships unanimously approved the "taking" of the Albin property in March, ending a process that began as long ago as 2001, when the Airport Committee began without success to acquire the land. The purchase was completed after the Township Boards took control of the process and made sure that all legal requirements were followed.
In Summary:
This report was prepared to inform you about recent and ongoing airport developments. I believe those of us who live and visit here will rise above our differences-in-view to discuss respectfully how best to proceed with the opportunity before us. I hope you take the time to stay informed and involved in furthering the convenience and safety of air travel to and from Beaver Island. This is all about your local government-your Island-your money-your airport and our collective wellbeing. Ours is a very special community, and it deserves our continuing vigilance and contribution. Please stay in touch-and involved.
Jack Gallagher, Peaine Township Supervisor