PORT OF COUPEVILLE

Commissioners Present: Marshall Bronson and Benye Weber
Commissioners Absent: Ann McDonald

Others Present: Jim Patton (Executive Director), Molly MacLeod-Roberts (Edwards & Associates), Justin Burnett (Whidbey Examiner), Nathan Whalen (Whidbey News Times), 37 individuals who signed in (see sign-in sheets attached to these Minutes), and approximately 25 other individuals who did not sign in.

Call to Order: The special meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m. by Commissioner Bronson in the meeting room of the Monroe Landing Fire Station #27 (adjacent to the Eisenberg Airport in Oak Harbor, WA), followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

PURPOSE OF THE MEETING:

Commissioner Bronson read aloud the Purpose of the Meeting from the Agenda, as follows:

"The Port's Comprehensive Plan 2007-2026, adopted by the Board of Commissioners on May 9, 2007, includes an initiative to establish the feasibility of purchasing the former Wes Lupien Field, which has recently been renamed the A.J. Eisenberg Airport. Mr. Joel Eisenberg has requested that the Board proceed with a study to examine the feasibility of such a purchase and the Board wishes to determine whether the residents of the Port District are in accord with this particular initiative. The public is invited to attend the special meeting, but public input will be limited to the matter of the feasibility study and the purchase initiative. The role of the Board of Commissioners will be to listen to the public's comments. The Board will not make any decisions at this meeting but will consider Mr. Eisenberg's request at its next regular public meeting, scheduled for April 14, 2010, at the Coupeville Recreation Center. The Minutes of this Special Meeting will be recorded and become part of the permanent records of the Port of Coupeville."

PROCEEDINGS:

Briefing on the airport initiative in the Comprehensive Plan 2007-2026: (Executive Director Jim Patton) Patton explained that the Comp Plan and its initiatives came from the public - volunteers within the Port District helped write it and the initiatives, one of which has to do with determining the feasibility of the Port acquiring the Wes Lupien Airfield. Since the adoption of the Plan, the Port has worked on other initiatives such as the Master Site Plan for the Greenbank Farm, but not the air transportation facility initiative. Tonight's meeting is in response to Joel Eisenberg's letter to the Port dated October 21, 2009 (on file at the Port office), in which Eisenberg suggested the Port begin an effort toward that initiative by conducting a feasibility study. Patton subsequently contacted the staff at the Port of South Whidbey, since that port had conducted an airport feasibility study in early 2009. When the study was complete, the Port of South Whidbey held a public meeting. The public was very dissatisfied with that effort and the Port of South Whidbey took no further action. Patton explained that, "…rather than putting the cart in front of the horse", the Board of Commissioners of the Port of Coupeville decided to listen to the public on the issue first, prior to making any determination on the feasibility study.

Public comments and discussion on the initiative and on the feasibility study: (By individual and zip code, when provided) Bronson explained that each person would be allowed 3 minutes, and time cannot be yielded to another individual. He then read each name listed on the sign in sheet and asked if they wished to speak.

Victor Robart, 98277: Robart read aloud from his prepared statement, summarized as follows: He lives near the airport on the shore of Penn Cove, and he is the 4th generation of his family to live on their farm. As a member of the Washington State University Beachwatchers, he has worked with the Port and admires the organization, its leadership and the good work they do with the community. He thanked the Port for all they do. Robart said he was opposed to the acquisition of the airport by the Port. He stated that nearby residents already suffer from the noise and pollution generated by the facility, and it would become worse if it were purchased and expanded. He was an airport planning consultant for 31 years, so he felt he spoke with some authority on the matter. He listed the following as important points:

• The airport is located inside of the Historic Reserve, a unit of the National Parks System, so compatibility is an obvious and serious problem.
• The airport is outside of the Port's jurisdictional boundary, and it's located between two active and important naval aviation facilities that its development could very likely compromise.
• While the Port is doing very good work at both of its present facilities (Coupeville Wharf and Greenbank Farm), it is expensive work. Consequently, the Port's budget is under significant financial strain.

Given those conditions, Robart said, "It does not make sense to me for the Port to take on the additional cost of owning and operating a public-use airport, and to be clear: Small airports lose money." He noted that the airport's website talks about the amount of money required to develop the airport, and indicates that the principal return would be in the development of industry and business in the vicinity of the address. Robart concluded, "It seems to me that spending money that the Port will have to borrow to develop a facility that will adversely affect the surrounding area, thwart the Reserve's goals and potentially compromise the Navy's operations…does not make any sense."

David Ketchum, 98253: Ketchum explained that he was the consultant hired by the Port of South Whidbey to conduct their feasibility study. He would like the record to show that the public at the Port of South Whidbey's effort were not dissatisfied with the plan (which he authored); but rather with the effort of buying the airport. He attended tonight's meeting to hear the audience, and he offered to provide any technical information in terms of airport design, planning or funding of the project.

Ken Lehman, 98277: Lehman said he lives on Arnold Road and his family has owned and operated Penn Cove Veterinary Clinic in Coupeville since the early 90s. He said he was opposed to the purchase of the airport by the Port. Lehman said there have been many nights with high winds when planes have flown over their house so close that the windows rattled, and it's really frightening. He therefore feels there is a safety issue with expanding the airport. Additionally, if the airport is significantly expanded, he thinks property values near the airport will drop. Lehman added, "There's already enough airplane noise over Central Whidbey." He noted that the Comp Plan states that one of the Port's primary concerns for project selection is good stewardship of the land, and that the project sustains and/or enhances Central Whidbey's rural character, historic sites or structures, natural environment and so on. He said, "I don't see how this project meshes with that." He said he very much supports the Port's maintaining the Wharf in Coupeville, managing the Greenbank Farm, and assisting in sustainable agriculture endeavors. The National Historic Reserve is very unique, and it seems to him that any economic development the Port seeks to foster should be more compatible with the goals of the Reserve's Comprehensive Plan. Lehman said the airfield started out as small, private airfield and it is better suited to stay that way. There are other larger airfields enthusiasts can use already in Anacortes and Skagit Valley. He believes the Port should focus its very limited resources on the Wharf, the Greenbank Farm and agriculture, and pass on the airport acquisition and expansion.

Lehman noted that the Whidbey Examiner had reported that there isn't clear title to the airport. He also provided copies of articles from the Whidbey Examiner, the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Puget Sound Business Journal detailing some of Joel Eisenberg's business dealings over the years (on file at the Port office). Lehman said, "After reading these, one wonders why one would want to engage in any business dealing with him."

David Ketchum, 98253: Ketchum said it was his understanding that the purpose of this meeting was to determine whether to engage in a feasibility study - not to purchase the airport. Bronson said that was correct.

Jim Wihlborg, 98277: Wihlborg said he had a fixed base operation in the Alaskan Interior and also flew provisions in there. He sees the feasibility of someone selling fuel or oil or having charts available for transients, but he also sees that would mean someone would have to be there 16 hours per day, 7 days per week. He has flown in and out of the airport, and said it could be "a pretty spooky experience" - the runway is only 2 feet wider than the gear legs on the Navajos and there is a large dip in the center of the runway. Wihlborg thought it would be a very expensive venture for anyone who wants to try to make a business of it.

Steve Foster, 98277: Foster said he lived on Penn Cove and he suggested the Port should not pursue the feasibility study. He took umbrage at Eisenberg's assumption in the letter that the neighbors are in support of the airport being developed further. Foster said he and his neighbors are certainly not in support of this, and they are also not in support of having any new or increased taxes to support "a private venture that couldn't make it that's trying to turn public."

Gary Fisher, 98277: Fisher said he'd lived on Whidbey Island since 1957. He said, "We need to protect the rural atmosphere of the Island, and developing an airport would be against that purpose of retaining the rural atmosphere." He added that the airfield will always be the Wes Lupien Memorial Airport, regardless of ownership, and shared some of his personal history with Wes Lupien, including the fact that Lupien suffered from and eventually died of Alzheimer's. Fisher said he does not support the name change of the airport and he does not support any development of the airport.

Russ Gelfan, 98072: Gelfan said he has flown his Cessna 150 into the airport and it doesn't shake windows on houses. He doesn't think the airport needs to be bigger; it's fine the size that it is. He would like people to consider supporting the recreational visitors to the airport, because when they fly into small airports near small towns, they do go into town and spend money on meals, at shops and buying fuel. Even if the Port doesn't purchase the airport, Gelfan would like the Port to consider finding ways to support the airport.

Tom Downey, 98277: Downey said he is an A&P (Airframe and Power plant) mechanic and has worked at the airport since about 1990. He said he generates probably 30 customers every summer. He spreads that money around the community, and his customers spend money in the community. Downey feels the Board has just one consideration at this meeting: If the Port spent $45,000 on a study, would it ever reap the benefits back for the purchase of the airport? Downey thinks the airport is a valuable asset to the community - many people come to it and spend money in the community, but he doesn't believe a Port Commission is needed to operate the airport. He said, "All you need is an airport manager responsible to one member of the Board, to manage and take care of this airport." He added that once the airport is publicly owned, it is eligible for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) money, but it takes a long and heavy package to pay for it and get that money. Once you start getting FAA money, you have to contend with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and potential "through the fence" operations that would result in the TSA "shutting you off" from the funding.

Brooke Barnes (no zip code provided): Barnes identified himself as the mortgage holder in 1st mortgage position on the airport, and said he bought the airport "well before Mr. Eisenberg appeared on the horizon." He explained that when he bought the mortgage, the airline was going out of business but had not yet lost their gate at the SeaTac terminal. Barnes said, "We were beginning to look for other opportunities; other airports that might serve us." He stated that he paid the taxes on the airport from 1999-2006. He said he supported having a receiver appointed (Bob Savage), and Savage did a good job of managing during the time he was there. Barnes said the airport has been to trial for the ownership of the 2nd position; Eisenberg has sued him 5 times. Barnes stated, "I believe we should keep it (the airport) status quo." He added that it is currently in court in 2 different lawsuits for a determination of the taxes he has paid and should have returned to him along with costs and legal fees that he has paid to defend his 1st position. Barnes said Eisenberg has declared publicly and in the newspaper that he would never pay the mortgage, and that's why it has to be in court. He closed by saying he didn't want to comment on any ongoing court case, but he would welcome any questions after the meeting.

Dan Pullen, 98277: Pullen said he lives at the other end of the runway on the other end. He explained that while he was not opposed, he did have some serious questions. Currently the school district and Port district have the same boundary and it ends at Donald Street. He asked, "Are you going to incorporate all of this land between here and there, and suddenly we're going to be taxed as part of the Port District? Or are you going to leave the boundary as is and just add the airport itself?" Pullen said he voted against being a part of the Oak Harbor port, and he doesn't want to be part of the Port of Coupeville.

Mark Varljen, 98239: Varljen identified himself as a Coupeville resident and a private pilot. He said he was an airport advocate; however, he was reserving judgment on this particular facility right now. He has watched what's going on with avid interest for nearly 10 years, and what he's noticed is "a lot of things nipping around the edges and nobody ever really getting to the meat of what's going on here and what the implications are." Varljen stated, "This is complicated business. We care intensely about our rural quality of life, our land use issues…there are legal issues at this airport unlike anywhere else…this is complex stuff." He thinks the feasibility study should be done. He will reserve judgment on whether the Port should acquire and develop the facility until the study is done. Varljen added, "We need to consider all the comments made so far; we need to consider the economic aspects, and we need to have an outside person analyze the legal situation." He feels the uncertainty is holding them up, and they need to put the uncertainty away by doing the feasibility study and putting this thing to rest.

Gary Wray, 98239: Wray said the Port's mission or job is economic growth, and they've kind of lost sight of that and become more stewards of Ebey's Prairie. That being said, he added that the Port is in financial trouble and must look very hard at spending any money, especially with all the legal aspects related to the airport. Wray felt that the legal issues must be resolved before the Port spends a dime. He would love to see an airport as part of the Port and the economic development from things that go along with that, but his understanding of Eisenberg's proposal is that the Port isn't going to gain anything from it. Eisenberg would gain because he would not have to pay the property taxes if the Port owned it. His understanding of the proposal is that Eisenberg wants the Port to buy it so he can lease it back from the Port and have full control of it. Wray reiterated that the Port has financial problems and doesn't need to spend more money. The Port needs to maintain the Greenbank Farm and the Wharf, but he would like to see the Port move more toward economic development because "that's what ports are about."

Joel Eisenberg, 98119: Eisenberg agreed that it is a complicated issue and said he didn't have all the answers. He stated, "I don't want to run the airport." He thinks the airport, in the Port's hands, could make money for the Port that could then be used for the Greenbank Farm and other things. He believed a feasibility study would give the Board the answers, and would cost the Port about $1,500. Eisenberg said there is a group of users that would come up with that money to pay for it, so the Port wouldn't have to spend any money on the study since the balance would be paid from state and federal funds. Eisenberg said everyone should also consider if they want a safe airport. He added, "To have a safe airport, you have to make some improvements, and no private owner has been able to do that." If the community needs an airport, something has to be done or there probably won't be an airport in 10-15 years due to increased land values and urban sprawl. Eisenberg noted that one of the first requirements for receiving federal funding is that the airport must basically remain an airport forever, so the federal government provides help in keeping urban sprawl away from the airport. If they want to preserve the rural character, he thinks an airport would help, not hurt. He added, "Again, that's the type of thing a study would show." Eisenberg said he was there to answer any questions they have, but he also wanted to clarify two things: 1) He is not interested in running an airport. If the Port or any public entity acquires it, they would be far better equipped to run it than he is. 2) Regarding having a fixed base operator, he said Anacortes has one and also has a scheduled airline going into their airport. Eisenberg said both Anacortes and Skagit Valley airports were built with federal money, as was Paine Field, so Whidbey Island residents are paying federal taxes to support those airports rather than supporting their own airport. He concluded, "You have to do what you have to do, but this is a chance to find out once and for all if you want to go ahead and do something." Eisenberg said maybe some other entity could do it, but he felt the Port was a natural for it. The airport is adjacent to the Port district so the Port could expand into it and fulfill its originally intended aim. He encouraged the Port to conduct the feasibility study to get the answers needed.

Marcia McCraw, 98119: McCraw said she would like to add onto Eisenberg's comments and clarify some misunderstandings. She said the purpose of this meeting is just to determine if there is interest in the airport, and if there is sufficient interest, then a feasibility study would go forward to get the answers to all these questions. McCraw said the idea is not for the Port, which is financially strapped, to buy the airport with out-of-pocket dollars. The idea is for the Port to acquire the airport with no money out-of-pocket. If the Port acquires, owns and manages the airport as a public entity, so many federal and state dollars would be available for improvements that would make the airport much safer and of greater benefit to the immediate community and to the entire Island. She said the Anacortes airport, because it is publicly owned, gets over a million dollars per year. McCraw reiterated that if the airport was owned by the Port, a public entity, so many dollars would go into the airport to make it a better run, safer operation and the bottom line is the cash flow would definitely increase. She added, "I believe it would increase, but a feasibility study certainly would give us a broader idea." If the feasibility study showed the bottom line would increase to the Port's benefit, the Port would have more money to support Greenbank Farm and improve the Wharf and to do all the other things the Port needs to do.

Joyce Peterson, 98277: Peterson said she wanted to voice a "Nay." She didn't think the airport is a high priority for the Port at this time.

Robert Harrison, 98277: Harrison said, "I can see I'm outnumbered by the NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) here, but everybody I know likes having an airport here and likes hearing airplanes and maybe that's because we have one." He said he has flown in and out of the airport since 1967, and it facilitated two of his jobs by enabling him to commute from the airport via commercial flight and his own airplane. Harrison said he is torn on the idea of spending any money or his grandkids' money whether it comes from the federal government or anywhere else, but he "really strongly thinks they should at least begin to pursue a study, and maybe look at some creative ways of financing it with donations or whatever." He thinks the economic benefit that redounds to the community is far wider than what little bit you can make running an airport. Harrison stated that one of the reasons why the 2nd largest employer in Oak Harbor left 10 years ago was inaccessibility to air transport. That company moved to Bellingham where they had that type of access. Harrison said an airport would be of economic benefit to the community, and the question is how is it going to be done: With the Port of Coupeville taking over? Joint use at the Naval Air Station? Development at this airport? He added, "There really is no interference, because the Navy already provides approach and departure control services for the airport." Harrison reiterated that he strongly feels the Port should pursue a feasibility study.

Jim Wood, 98239: Wood said he is also a pilot, and flies for Island Air, a charter company in the San Juan Islands. He has flown for San Juan Airlines and for Harbor Airlines also. He thinks the Port should do a feasibility study. He said, "It comes down to infrastructure for Whidbey Island." He said he flies prisoners from Friday Harbor to this airport since there aren't jail facilities in the San Juan's. Harrison said they also provide MedEvac (he is a MedEvac pilot), and the cost is about 1/3 of what it costs for the helicopter to land at the hospital. He said there are a lot of airports in the San Juan Islands and they serve those communities very well - people use them every day; it's how people get around because their other transportation systems are not that good and time is too valuable for business people to sit on and wait for ferry boats. A lot of communities have a public airport and they use it - Whidbey Island doesn't. He agreed with Eisenberg's comment that urban sprawl could be prevented by having a publicly owned airport. Wood stated, "The planes that do fly in and out of here - I can guarantee you don't even know when they are here or not here. You can't hear a plane coming in from any direction - as soon as that throttle is reduced, it's a glider - there's no noise." (Several audience members laughed at that comment.) Wood concluded that he supported the study.

Stuart Ashley, 98277: Ashley said he was in favor of the study. He said, "It's very difficult to make a strong case in favor of ignorance. Let's not try to figure out what the answer should be; let's see if the study will tell us that."

Bronson announced that he had read all the names on the list and asked if anyone else wished to speak.

Homer Lupien, 98277: Lupien said, "The airport has been an airport since 1963; 46 years. Once it's gone we probably won't ever have an airport again, so we need to think long and hard: Does Whidbey Island want an airport on the north end?" As far as the runway being safe, Lupien pointed out that an airline operated out of there for 36 years and never had any major accidents landing on that runway, regardless of the winds. That airline kept a rigid schedule of 11 flights per day/7 days per week for 36 years. They operated at a profit and were privately funded, and Lupien said, "I think that speaks volumes." Lupien concluded, "So safety is not a factor. It's zoned as an airport, it's been an airport, it is an airport. If you want to get it as a public entity, the FAA is one of the few federal agencies that has a massive amount of surplus funds, and the sole purpose of those funds is to put them into small airports." Lupien said the airport is a vital link to our transportation system, and it will become more vital in the future as the population grows. He supports doing the study.

Lionel Peoples, 98277: Peoples identified himself as an aviation technical analyst and said, "If you look around this country you will find that there are virtually no new small airports - they're gone, and they are not putting new ones in. There is no place else for airports to go, so if you lose this one - it's gone."

Dwight Galbreath, 98277: Galbreath said he lives right underneath the approach to Runway 25 and has lived there since 1987. He said he hardly ever hears the airplanes coming and going, so it doesn't seem like an issue at all. He said right now there isn't a lot of density on either end of the airport on the approaches, but without some type of a port district or public entity to control those issues, "we're going to end up getting swallowed up as Anacortes is." He feels strongly that they should consider a feasibility study.

Michael King, 98277: King said he learned to fly at this airport, and he finds it immensely useful as he frequently flies in relatives, etc. Since getting his license 5 years ago, he has watched the airport deteriorate because nobody knows what to do with it. He thinks they need to figure out what can be done, or they are going to lose it.

Sharon Hart, 98239: Hart identified herself as the Director of Island County's Economic Development Council (EDC), and reported that the EDC has made restoring air service a priority. During the last 7-8 years, she has worked with carriers for both the marina and with Kenmore Air, and through that process she has really appreciated all the economic development identification here. She said it is a really strong piece of the economic future of this Island: being able to provide stable transportation facilities. The EDC has supported any efforts to bring air service in a sustainable way to this airport. The problem is that many of the issues and questions being discussed and asked tonight cannot be addressed or answered by the EDC when talking to potential air service carriers. Regardless of what the Port does, the EDC will continue its efforts to find a stable air carrier. Hart said the EDC did find that such air service would support large employers, including the largest - the U.S. Navy. She explained that over 60% of the client base for the sustainable air service would be Navy-affiliated.

Greg Speck, 98277: Speck said he was a retired Navy pilot, has flown commercially for years, and has flown out of this airport quite a bit. His airplane is sitting right now in Anacortes, so he doesn't get to fly much since it takes an hour to drive there and an hour to get back. He said he would love to see a feasibility study, because he knows there a lot of people like him on the Island who would love to bring their airplanes back. Speck reminded everyone that in the early 1990s, the U.S. Government considered pulling the Navy off the Island and closing the Naval Air Station base. He recalled that at the time, they were all scrambling to figure out how to keep Oak Harbor alive. He thinks the airport could be a viable economic boost if it was put back in action, so he really supports the feasibility study.

David Ketchum, 98253: Ketchum pointed out that if the Port decides to do a feasibility study, the funds most likely would come for the State of Washington, and not the FAA. The FAA would not be involved at this time. Ketchum further explained that the Aviation Division of the Washington State Department of Transportation has two grant cycles per year. The grant cycle that is currently open will probably close on April 26th. Ketchum also noted that depending on what the feasibility study shows, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the FAA would ever be involved. The airport would have to be included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), and it would to be on a very high priority in order for it to even qualify for FAA funds. Regarding FAA money, Ketchum therefore cautioned, "It's not necessarily a done deal." He added that a feasibility study would; however, be a step forward. Ketchum said that if the Port decides to do a feasibility study and decides to use public money, he would obviously like to do that study but he would have to compete with others because the Port would have to solicit Statements of Qualifications from other firms and go through that process to select a firm to do the study.

Unidentified male: The individual asked, "Would it be feasible to have a show of hands of how many people would like to have the airport stay?" Bronson explained that was not the question; the only question is: "Should we do the feasibility study?"

Bronson noted that everyone who wanted to speak had done so, and he encouraged everyone "to talk amongst themselves" after the meeting. On behalf of the Board, he thanked everyone for attending.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Bronson adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m.