Commissioner Pollack called the meeting to order at
and provided an introduction and basis for the special meeting.Pollack introduced Jim Branson, City
Branson addressed an overview of the rules and
regulations to the public and the Commission and clarified possible
misconceptions based on correspondence received.Rules have been in place since 1997 and need
revision.Rules need to be logical,
enforceable and used by everyone, not just directed to pilots.Suggested changes were drafts only and meant
to be discussed. Jim suggested the main issues were regarding alcohol, camping,
and parking, and then recommended forming a subcommittee comprised of City
Staff, EAA, AOPA, and pilots.
Taylor agreed with forming a
subcommittee as a good idea and reinforced the need for enforceable rules.Commissioner Janson disagreed with the
subcommittee format and suggested that the commission be the committee and the
rules be ironed out with the commission and all present.Taylor indicated that using
comments received and the correct representation would not waste everyone’s
time.Branson provided an example
regarding special considerations of alcohol use, but stressed the rules need to
be defined.Taylor indicated there is poor
perception to newspaper when pilots indicate a main concern is not being able
to drink at the airport. Bergstein is in
support of subcommittee and indicated that good ideas have been provided from
letters received and that the new rules would have to be followed for
years.Pollock showed concern that
consensus would not be reached with a large group, so it may be better to have
representation to have issues resolved.Pollack added that common sense and consistency is the key to developing
good rules.Pollack also stressed that
the commission is not on a rigid timeframe to get these rules to City
Council.Janson reiterated his
disagreement and thinks the group should go through the issues one by one.
Pete Swan (audience) indicated there were 4 issues to discuss, including the
Hangar Lease, Parachute rules, Ultra Light rules, and general rules, and
believes they cannot all be completed at once.
Other comments from those in attendance:
-Rules could be separated out and simplified, and commission
is responsible for taking the lead.
-Rules need to define culture and personality.What to do to airport as a whole?Rules may be in conflict with objectives.
This may be premature.
-Is there a problem with camping?Branson responded by indicating the rules
should not be piece-mealed and this is the time to make it right.
-Bob Barringer indicated there is no need for Ultra
Light rules.FAR Part 103 could apply
and 1000’s of others do not have specific rules for ultra lights.Another attendee added that special rules at
airports could increase hazards as pilots may not know rules.Tom Lind added that Ultra Light rules should
be eliminated as we are now starting to tell people how to fly planes.Taylor
recommended abolishing the Ultra Light rules.Janson seconded. Approved (4/0)
-Bergstein indicated in the Parachute rules a “25000”
number should be “2500”.Janson
indicated rules are good to have.FAR
does address allowability.Craig Kelly
requested that an experienced skydiver should review these rules.Lind recommended these rules be sent to the
Flight Standards District Headquarters in Grand Rapids
for review.Jim Branson indicated
specific rules must be addressed and must meet USPA guidelines.A recommendation for Brad Wenchel (skydiver)
review the document was made in the audience.A motion was made by Janson that
the parachute rules be reviewed by Brad Wenchel and sent to the Flight
Standards District Headquarters in Grand Rapids for review, followed by a new draft of the
Parachute rules developed for commission review.Taylor
seconded, Approved (4/0).
Discussion ensued about land leases/hangar
leases.Suggestion was raised in
audience whether private and public hangars should be separated (minor
indicated hangar uses shall be used for airport purposes.Branson indicated that part of the problem
with hangar use is enforcement.Swan
suggested commercial rates be charged for users not having airport use.Several on commission and audience disagreed.Lind added that use as an empty hangar or car
storage needs to be addressed.Craig
Kelly asked whether non-aviation businesses could be implemented at the
airport.McManus indicated that it would
have to be an airport use.Other uses
may require the land to be returned to the original owner.Another in the audience asked whether a
restaurant would be placed on airport.McManus indicated the commission could review if requested.No determinations provided in this
regard.Hollis McKeag indicated that
rules were made because a past incident where a hangar door was left open and
it was full of storage.Taylor
provided more information to clarify the past incident.
made by Janson to move to a 2nd meeting to resolve the remaining
issues.This motion was seconded by Taylor, (all Aye, 4/0).New meeting date was not determined.