Land Use Issues | Aurora Airport

Sen. Fred Girod, SB 534 and Aurora Airport Expansion

At the beginning of the current 2015 legislative session, Sen. Fred Girod (R-Silverton) put forward Senate Bill 534, which will enable cities to provide water and sewer to airports without annexation into the city. This bill is not only unnecessary because provision of these services is possible under current land use laws (provided a need is shown), but it is a specific gift to the Aurora Airport and has state-wide implications.

FOFP met with Sen. Girod, and he made it quite clear that the Aurora Airport asked for the bill, and he made light of the probability of it passing. When asked about who would pay for the urban services to be provided, Senator Girod stated that the cities entering into the agreements would have to create a financing mechanism!

The bill subsequently went to the Senate Business & Transportation Committee, where it was treated as a “transportation bill” and promoted by Sen. Betsy Johnson. It passed the Senate almost unanimously (one opposing vote) and was moved to the House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water.

The implications are significant:

  1. The first issue is municipal governance. In the case of the Aurora Airport, it sits in Marion County, and with the provision of water & sewer is in position to develop without any municipal oversight!
  2. Most general aviation airports across the state that are outside city limits sit on farmland or forest lands. Development at these airports threatens both!
  3. Sewer and water are expensive urban services to provide, and the bill's proponents are relying on the cities to develop the means to finance providing these services via municipal bonds, etc. If something goes wrong, it is the local taxpayers who are on the hook!
  4. If provision of urban services drives significant commercial development at airports, that development could very well come at the expense of nearby cities!

On May 12 the Committee on Rural Communities held a hearing for the bill, which saw oral opposition testimony from City of Wilsonville, City of Aurora, Clackamas County Farm Bureau, Charbonneau Country Club, Friends of French Prairie and 1000 Friends of Oregon. Additionally, written opposition was submitted by City of Canby, Friends of Family Farmers,

The proponents of the bill tried to characterize it as a “jobs bill” and made light of the potential negative consequences, positioning it as a bill “to provide bathrooms for pilots!” However, none of them could discuss the bill without acknowledging that it had a significant potential to drive airport-related development, and Marion County Commissioner Kevin Cameron even positively described the “industrialization” it would bring about at the Aurora Airport.

Of note, there was some confusion during the proponent’s testimony about whether the bill as written would prevent cities from annexing in the future the airport to which services were being provided. Chair Clem sought a legal interpretation from legislative counsel and received it during the hearing: the bill does prevent any future annexation of the airport to the City providing the services after an agreement has been reached and services provided.

FOFP's position on this bill was:

  1. It is unnecessary, and sets a bad precedent by removing municipal governance from the provision of urban services necessary for development.
  2. Provision of these services should not be allowed if the development that follows requires the rezoning of high value farm land or forest land.
  3. If these services are to be provided by cities, the entire cost of providing them (including capital and operating costs) should be paid for by the airports, not financed by the local taxpayers.
  4. Provision of these services should require the approval of all cities within three miles of the airport to prevent negative impact on the cities through development.

Given the near unanimous passage in the Senate, the Rural Communities committee was under significant pressure to move the bill forward, and to their credit, considered amendments proposed by City of Wilsonville and Friends of French Prairie. These amendments would have required airports to pay for all water and sewer costs, would have prevented loss of farmland due to airport development, and required municipalities within three miles to agree. At a work session on May 25, again under a lot of pressure from proponents, the Rural Communities committee again discussed the bill. Chair Clem announced that he had sought legal interpretation from DLCD regarding whether the bill would have any impact on the “exception process” requirements in current land use law. He reported that DLCD’s opinion was that it did not change the exception process. Download the DLCD letter here

The Rural Communities Committee passed the bill, having determined that it was better to pass the bill as is, given that the exception process still applies, rather than fight for the proposed amendments and risk having another amendment put forward that would change the applicability of the exception process. The bill went to the House Rules committee, where there was also no traction to add amendments. The bill went to the full House on July 3 and passed with 50 Ayes and only 9 Nays (Reps. Barnhart, Barton, Buckley, Holvey, Lininger, Nosse, Smith Warner, Taylor, Williamson). Of note, Rep. Clem requested that the DLCD letter be read on the House floor so all understood that the bill addressed annexation specifically and did not impact state land use law. Thus it became part of the Legislative record. Download the legislative chronology on this bill here

We asked Mary Kyle McCurdy of 1000 Friends to explain the importance of this re: land use law.

SB 534, in its entirely, reads:

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1.
A city and an airport may enter into an agreement pursuant to which the city provides sewer and water services to the airport without requiring the annexation, or consent to eventual annexation, to the city of the territory on which the airport is situated.
SECTION 2.
This 2015 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2015 Act takes effect on its passage.


This bill is about annexation to a city; it is not about land use. Annexation laws have been around much longer than Oregon's land use program, and deal with the municipal governance boundaries of a city. The land use laws and annexation laws are awkward together because they grew up over different time periods and for different reasons. City boundaries were initially drawn over a hundred years ago. City boundaries are not co-terminus with the UGB. Usually, the UGB is larger than the city boundary because the UGB contains a 20-year land supply. Cities normally annex land within the UGB over time, as they provide municipal services to those lands. So normally (but not always), a city would not extend urban services to lands without first annexing them into the city boundaries.

Land use law (in particular, Goal 11 and its administrative rule) prohibits cities from extending urban services (water, sewer, storm water) outside a UGB unless (1) DEQ declares a health hazard and makes the city come in and solve the problem (failing septic systems, for example, but this is not frequent), or (2) the city & airport justify an "exception" to the land use goals that would otherwise apply - which in this kind of case would be Goals 3 and 11. To get an exception, the entity applying for it (the county must grant the exception and it is subject to appeal to LUBA) must demonstrate that there is a really good "reason" for the exception, and that there are no good alternatives to the extension of the urban services across EFU land. If the applicant can demonstrate this, the service extension would be limited to the use and reason that was the basis of the justification, and there could be requirements to take the route that is least damaging to farmland.

Here, as I understand, the Aurora Airport is outside both the city limits and the UGB, and it would require running pipes through EFU land to serve the airport or the area around it with water and/or sewer service. The bill says nothing about the exceptions process; it is just about annexation. So the requirement for an exception is still the law.

AURORA AIPORT MASTER PLAN OVERVIEW

The Oregon Dept. of Aviation, under the oversight of the Oregon Board of Aviation, have been overseeing an update to the Master Plan for the Aurora State Airport. This multi-year process is separate from the Federal Aviation Administration decision to place an air traffic control tower at the Aurora Airport for safety reasons. The process has been fraught with politics and special interest pressures, and significant changes of direction as can be seen in the Plan Chronology and in the Master Plan Process Summary prepared by Tony Holt (Civic Affairs at Charbonneau).

Aurora Airport Master Plan Chronology

Nov. 3, 2009

Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) initiates Master Plan update for Aurora Airport with selection of WH Pacific as consultant. Public Kick-Off Meeting defines Master Plan outcome to include:

Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Airport inventory
Chapter 3 - Aeronautical Activity Forecast
Chapter 4 - Facilities Requirements
Chapter 5 - Airport Alternatives
Chapter 6 - Airport Layout Plan
Chapter 7 - Capital Improvement Plan

December 2010

ODA appoints Public Advisory Committee (PAC) comprised of airport users, representative of local municipalities and concerned citizens

July 22, 2010

PAC Meeting #1

Sep. 14, 2010

Letter from Clackamas Co., City of Wilsonville, neighboring communities & Friends of Marion Co. to Chair, Aviation Board saying Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) marginalized; process being rushed; discussion time severely limited; no discussion of study goals or vision; activity forecast sent to FAA for approval prior to PAC review; no impact analyses of noise, pollution, traffic; requests meeting with Chair of Aviation Board, FAA, Director ODA and Consultant.

Sep. 30, 2010

PAC Meeting #2

Dec. 9, 2010

PAC Meeting #3

Feb 17, 2011

PAC Meeting #4

March 10, 2011

Preferred Alternative presented to Oregon Aviation Board in Salem. Includes: change of ARC status from B-II to C-II, no expansion of physical size of airport, and no lengthening of runway "ODA has decided that any extension would prove infeasible at this time....An extension to the south might have a negative impact on farmland--a potentially environmentally infeasible situation."

April 2011

Aviation Board directs ODA staff to change Preferred Alternative and include options with runway lengthening of 600 or 800 feet.

April 28, 2011

"New" Preferred Alternative with two scenarios to lengthen the runway are presented to Oregon Aviation Board. ODA staff is instructed to present the Preferred Alternative to the PAC

June 7, 2011

ODA receives letter from FAA Seattle Regional Office that is will not support nor fund types of runway lengthening being considered and will only support a 1,000 foot runway extension

June 7, 2011

Preferred Alternative with two lengthening scenarios is presented to PAC at public meeting.

June 24, 2011

Aviation board votes unanimously in support of an 800 foot displaced threshold runway "extension" to the north.

Oct. 17-18, 2012

Airport Layout Plan signed by FAA and ODA after over a year of bickering and negotiating about tower siting, length of runway extension and location of runway extension.

Aurora Airport Master Plan Summary

The Aurora Airport Master Plan current revision has been a flawed process from the beginning, largely due to the fact that there is no independent party involved having decision making powers. All the decision makers, ODA, the Aviation Board and the FAA, have a vested aviation interest and some of the members of those groups even have an aviation business interest. In addition, there has been a complete lack of reliable documentation. There are no records of take-offs and landings at the Airport, and so any forecast of activity is suspect. There is no proper documentation of the claims by 11 operators at Aurora (out of about 350 based aircraft) that they have 'constrained operations' and need a longer runway. There is no documentation of ODA's conversations with the FAA whereby the FAA appears to overrule ODA's latest development proposals.

Then there is the actual sequence of events—the ever changing face of ODA's development 'Preferred Alternative" (PA). After much discussion among the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) with no clear conclusion as to whether or not there should be a runway expansion, ODA decided their Preferred Alternative would be a strengthening of the runway but no extension. They said "ODA has decided that any extension would prove infeasible at this time." That seemed a reasonable compromise, given the differing views of the Policy Advisory Committee. But that did not satisfy the Airport developers and a few Airport businesses. They lobbied ODA and the Aviation Board hard. So ODA cherry-picked its comment responses and said that (within an arbitrary time period) there was a majority in favor of runway extension. They ignored all the petitions and testimony opposing an extension that had gone before. Suddenly runway expansion was no longer 'infeasible'. Two hybrid extension cases were produced which would lengthen the runway for take-offs but not for landings. At this point the FAA got in the act. Or were they in all along? They said they would not fund any hybrid expansion as proposed. So, out of the blue came the latest ODA PA, a 1000 foot expansion to the south which extends the airport outside the current boundary onto prime farmland and closes a road which is considered key access for the Aurora Fire District and local farmers. ODA itself said earlier "Keil Road provides necessary access for farm equipment/machinery and emergency responders—" Where did the 1000 feet come from? Why not 600 feet or 400 feet? The saga of the process, with no checks and balances, continues.

The Master Planning process is supposed to be a collaborative one between airport users, neighboring communities and local government representatives. This one has become a one sided effort to grow the Aurora Airport with disregard by the Aviation Board and ODA for local input. That was followed by the FAA rejecting ODA’s first three recommendations. Where will it all end and who will be the independent arbiter of this process which is spending, and will in the future spend, lots of scarce taxpayer money to benefit a very few?

Tony Holt
Charbonneau Country Club Civic Affairs

Friends of French Prairie position on the Master Planning process.

Friends of French Prairie is on record as opposing lengthening of the runway and does not believe the data supports the need. We are strongly opposed to any expansion of the airport boundary that would close Kiel Road and take EFU farmland. We find it perplexing after a month's long process on the part of ODA, WH Pacific and the PAC, that prompting from the Oregon Aviation Board and the FAA have seemingly caused a reversal of the position stated in the Preferred Alternative of March 24, including the statement: "ODA has decided that any extension would prove infeasible at this time....An extension to the south might have a negative impact on farmland--a potentially environmentally infeasible situation."

The City of Salem has decided to extend the runway at the airport at the State capital. Why should the public, through FAA Federal money and State OTIA III state money pay for TWO airport runway expansions for competing airports which are only 26.3 miles from each other?

Aurora is 26.3 miles from Salem and 22.8 miles from downtown Portland, much farther than PDX. Salem can serve the needs of the South Metro/North Willamette Valley with only slightly longer driving distances on fully developed roads than Aurora, who’s local roads are rural and inadequate for increased airport traffic.

Given the choice, Salem should get the go ahead and Aurora should remain as it is today, because:

  • Salem has a tower and urban services – Aurora would need to build a tower and has NO urban services, is on limited well water and septic tanks.
  • Salem has municipal governance, Aurora is on EFU land, outside city limits, urban growth boundaries and has no immediate plans to become urbanized
  • Salem has commercial air service, Aurora has none;
  • Salem serves the Air National Guard and the State Capitol; Aurora serves flight schools and private pilots, it’s major economic focus is helicopters, which do not need new expensive runway expansions to provide jobs.
  • Salem’s runway, after extension would be shorter than Aurora’s – Why do we need to expand a constrained airport, when a non-constrained airport exists?
  • The Aurora expansion is supported by false airport use numbers, with little real demand other than the desire of airport users to fly bigger jets and developers to do real estate deals, Salem has real need, real economic growth potential and serves hundreds of acres of nearby zoned and served industrial land.

After a year and a half long process where are we? The Aviation Board has voted in support of a displaced threshold runway "extension" knowing full well that the FAA is almost certainly not going to approve and provide funds for it. This would enable the Aviation Board to accept the FAA's position of a 1,000 foot runway extension and be able to say: "we tried for less, but the FAA forced us to make a longer conventional extension." The problem is that position doesn't pass the smell test.

Of note, on March 10, 2011, when the Preferred Alternative was presented to the Aviation Board and proposed no runway extension, that recommendation was ostensibly based on a set of data (surveys, constrained operations numbers, etc.). That recommendation did not satisfy the Aviation Board nor airport users, and ODA and their consultant was directed to look at additional runway extension options. On what data is the 800 foot runway extension based? None! It is purely a function of the desire of airport users and the Aviation Board to enlarge the Aurora Airport and extend the runway, and now they have their straw man in the form of the FAA. This is an outrageous assault on local decision making and an terrible use of tax payer dollars!

Where are we now, early 2013?

The very public process by which the update to the Aurora Airport Master Plan ran for a year and a half, and engaged a great deal of public involvement—both pro and against expansion.  The result was delivery by ODA and their consultant, WH Pacific, a Preferred Alternative that recommended to runway extension and no expansion of the airport.  That wasn’t good enough for the Oregon Aviation Board who summarily instructed ODA to go find a way to extend the runway.  ODA did another survey of aviation users and excluded all other public comment, resulting in a new set of data that strongly supported runway extension. This lead to two new extension scenarios, and the Aviation Board then unanimously approved the one for an 800 foot extension to the north—knowing full well that the FAA was already on record opposing such an extension.  That was the end of the public process—though its worthy of note that Aviation Board meetings aren’t really part of the public process: they are not publicly noticed and there is no space on the agenda for public comment.

On October 12, 2012 FAA and ODA signed the Airport Layout Plan, finalizing the central element of the Master Plan. The sixteen months between the last vestige of public activity at the Aviation Board meeting and the agreement between ODA and FAA on the Airport Layout plan were completely shielded from public involvement.  And the result is a “delivered plan” that is about as far apart from the original “Preferred Alternative” as could be possible.

  • Instead of no runway extension we now have a 1,000 foot extension
  • Instead of no airport expansion we now have the proposal to acquire 55 acres of EFU land south of the airport to expand the runway protection zone
  • Instead of concern about a negative impact on farmland, all the farmland south of the airport id a direct fly over zone
  • Instead of no impact on Kiel Road, Kiel Road will be abandoned on its west end where it joins Hwy. 551 and rerouted to Ehlen road, dividing the remaining farmland south of the airport in half and marginalizing it.

FOFP said almost two years ago that what was going on at Aviation Board meetings was an outrageous assault on local decision making and use of tax dollars. What has ensued since is an egregious overturn of public process, where all public input ended up ignored and used as nothing more than window dressing so State and Federal aviation agencies could get what they wanted all along. And who benefits? A very small percentage, the less than 1% in the aviation sector, who now get to have their infrastructure paid for by regular tax payers.

AURORA AIPORT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN APPROVED BY ODA AND FAA

On October 17 and 18, ODA and FAA signed the final Airport Layout Plan, finalizing the central elements of the Aurora Airport Master Plan process by finally agreeing on the location of the air traffic control tower, the strength and designation of the runway, the extension of the main runway, and the expansion of the airport to the south to extend the runway protection zone.

Download the Airport Layout Plan in PDF here

AURORA AIPORT MASTER PLAN - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PRESENTED TO BOARD OF AVIATION

On March 31, the Oregon Department of Aviation recommendation on updates to the Aurora Airport Master Plan was made to the Oregon Aviation Board by ODA staff and their consultant. Of note, the core of the presentation was the explanation of the "Preferred Alternative" which replaces the four alternative found in the draft of Chapter Five of the Master Plan. The "Preferred Alternative" document and its accompanying layout map recommend:

  1. Change in Classification from B-II to C-II (a classification to accommodate larger and heavier jets) with improved avionics.
  2. No lengthening of the runway, but a substantial extension of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to the south, including:
  3. Acquisition of EFU farm land to accommodate the RPZ and run off areas.
  4. The change of classification to C-II means strengthening the runway to accommodate larger jets.

The problem is that the oral testimony and discussion before the Aviation Board included a substantial discussion of another alternative: the future implementation of a "DIsplaced Threshold" which would result in a 1,000 foot runway extension at the south end of the runway for the purposes of allowing jets to take off to the north with a full load of passengers and fuel in the heat of the summer. If approved, this runway lengthening would bring the south end of the runway to the current south airport boundary. Implementing it would require:

  1. Further expansion south of the Runway Protection Zone
  2. Closure of Kiel Road
  3. The loss of additional EFU farm land, in as much as this would essentially condemn all property between the airport and Ehlen Road as suitable for airport-related development.

Friends of French Prairie opposes any runway lengthening. The Aurora Airport is constrained on three sides by major roads, and to the south by EFU farmland. Sacrificing foundation farmland for runway expansion to benefit less than 1% of the population, and paying for it with taxpayer's money is not acceptable.

Download the Master Plan Preferred Alternative in PDF here
Download the Preferred Alternative map in PDF here

FRIENDS OF FRENCH PAIRIE POSITION ON AURORA AIRPORT MASTPER PLAN DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES - Posted March 12, 2011

Friends of French Prairie submitted a written letter in opposition to all three build alternatives, accompanied by a petition signed by many members, given that all expansion alternatives do so at the expense of farm land. In part the letter said:

"We are opposed to expansion of the Aurora Airport, because all such expansion occurs at the expense of farm land. The airport was expanded in the '90s (resulting in the reconfiguration of Kiel Road), which in turn allowed the airport to handle larger aircraft. This attracted not just aircraft owners with larger aircraft, but aviation industry, which in turn led to more traffic, etc. The result of which is the current "safety problem" that has to be resolved with an air traffic control tower. Marion County has abetted this process by approving zone changes that have increased aviation activity, in as much as they see the airport as a tax revenue source and appear not to be concerned that the consequence is loss of farm land. The most recent and egregious example is the rezoning of EFU land allowing Helicopter Transport Corp. to relocate to the southwest corner of the airport will greatly increase helicopter traffic, and removes 30 acres of farm land. While we support improved air traffic safety, and thus the air traffic control tower, we support the No-Build Alternative found in Chapter 5 of the current Aurora Airport Master Plan document. The airport should continue as is, with necessary and required maintenance"

In addition, the Community of Charbonneau submitted a letter of opposition to all build alternatives accompanied by a petition with over 220 signatures.

Download the FOFP letter and petition in PDF

ODA FINALLY RELEASES AURORA AIRPORT BUILD PLAN ALTERNATIVES - Posted February 24, 2011

After a month long process to update the Aurora Airport Master Plan, that has included a Public Advisory Committee (PAC), ODA and its consultants finally released Draft of Chapter 5 "Airport Development Alternatives" for review and comment. The process has seemed backwards to many outside observers and some members of the PAC, given that defining airport expansion was among the goals, but nothing definitive was published until this draft document was released. It includes four alternatives for consideration, any one or a combination of which will be recommended by ODA staff to the State Aviation Board for approval.

  • No build alternative - no expansion of the current runway, only maintenance
  • Build Alternative 1 - expansion of the runway 600 feet to the north; all within current airport boundaries
  • Build Alternative 2 - expansion of the runway 1000 feet to the south, closure of Kiel Road and extension of the runway safety zone south of the current airport boundary
  • Build Alternative 3 - a "precision approach" alternative with no current runway lengthening, but expansion of runway safety zones in all directions beyond the current airport boundaries.

Download a copy of the Master Plan Chapter 5 in PDF

Public Comment will be accepted at the next PAC meeting, on March 10.

PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROTEST & CLACKAMAS COUNTY LEGAL INQUIRY RE: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER PLANNING PROCESS - Posted November 30, 2010

On September 14, a number of members of the Planning Advisory Committee (the planning committee appointed by Oregon Dept. of Transportation to provide planning input on the air traffic control tower) wrote a letter of protest to ODA documenting their concerns that the tower project was being rushed to a pre-determined conclusion by ODA and their consultant, WH Pacific. Among the cited concerns:

  • master planning process is being rushed on a condensed schedule
  • air traffic control tower is being actively pursued prior to development of the new master plan
  • the role of the PAC has been deliberately marginalized
  • the above is not the meaningful, due process input the FAA intends in their Master Plan process.

While the members of the PAC sending this letter represent the numerical minority of members, they represent the non-aviation members on the Committee and have been making the case for the need for master planning in advance of tower construction.

In late October ODA released the first three chapters of the Draft Aurora Airport Master Plan. This document, prepared by WH Pacific further confirmed concerns about the pre-determined goals and outcomes, because the Draft Master Plan document contained data laying the foundation to enable future lengthening and strengthening of the runway.

Specifically, runway lengthening is controlled by FAA policy:

E.1 Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design (AC 150/5325-4B)

In determining recommended runway lengths, the FAA uses a five step procedure based upon a selected list of critical aircraft. The five steps include:

  1. Identify the list of critical design airplanes that will make regular use of the proposed runway for an established period of at least five years.
  2. Identify airplanes or family of airplanes that will require the longest runway lengths at maximum certified takeoff weight (MTOW).
  3. Using Table 1-1 of AC 150/5325-4B and the airplanes identified in Step #2, determine the method that will be used for establishing the recommended runway length based upon useful load and service needs of critical design aircraft or family of aircraft.
  4. Select the recommended runway length from among the various runway lengths generated in Step 3 using the process identified in Chapter 2, 3 or 4 of AC 150/5325-4B, as applicable.
  5. Apply any necessary adjustment (i.e. pavement gradient, pavement condition (wet or dry), etc.)

In response to this document, Clackamas County legal staff prepared a letter requesting explanation and clarification from ODA regarding two important elements of future growth. The first was a projected increase in annual jet aircraft traffic, above and beyond the one time growth experienced by the South Park Jet Center. The second derives from the first, specifically the designation of the "critical aircraft" to be a Citation X. This is a much larger and heavier jet, capable of coast-to-coast non-stop flights, and presently none are based at the Aurora Airport.

It appears that these elements of the forecast in the Master Plan are purposefully included to justify continued airport expansion and lengthening of the runway--in spite of public declaration that airport expansion is not a goal of the tower project.

Of note, ODA's application for ConnectOregon III funding to construct the tower included letter from Xerox Corp. in November, 2009. It not only stated support for air traffic control tower, but went on to discuss runway lengthening.

General aviation and corporate traffic has steadily been on the rise in this prime location Having a control tower. adding an ILS and increasing the runway length by 500 to 1000 feet will not only increase safety. it will expedite traffic in and out of the area and attract even more business aircraft to KUAO that will have a positive impact on the economy

From the above it appears quite clear that the aviation interests pushing for the air traffic control tower have more than improved safety in view. They know full well that an air traffic control tower is a major infrastructure improvement to the airport and will drive aviation growth and airport expansion. They, along with ODA, and apparently aided and abetted by the FAA, are diligently working to avoid any of the master planning required by Oregon State land use laws.

AURORA AIRPORT MASTER PLAN WEB PAGE

The Aurora Airport Master Plan web page, providing an overview of the project and process, with documents and new updates can be found at: www.aurorastateairport.org.

Chapters of the current Master Plan are posted as released, and can be accessed, read and downloaded at: www.aurorastateairport.org/?p=chapters

The Chapters page also includes a link for citizens to make comments on the Master Planning process.




OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STAFF REPORT FOLLOWING OTC TESTIMONY - Posted August 20, 2010

The testimony before the Oregon Transportation Commission given by the City of Wilsonville, Clackamas County and Friends of French Prairie was best summarized in the final testimony given by Mia Nelson of 1000 Friends of Oregon when she said that the fundamental problem was that "the funding cart is ahead of the planning horse," and went on to point out that comprehensive land use planning, as intended by Oregon Law, could very well demonstrate that the cost of infrastructure required to support the expansion sure to follow construction on an air traffic control tower at the Aurora Airport would be so great as to be financially impractical.

Clearly all of this testimony fell on deaf ears at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODT), as evidenced by the Staff Report that was released on August 18, which dismissed public concern about land use considerations with the simple statement that "Construction of an ATCT at the Aurora State Airport will not change the existing land use." The blind eye in such a statement is staggering, given that the air traffic control tower itself will not change existing land use, but the projected airport expansion and related development will. The Oregon Department of Aviation funding application projects 300 new jobs at the Aurora Airport resulting from the air traffic control tower, in addition to the improved aviation safety delivered by a tower. The fundamental problem all along has been the dutiful avoidance of land use and traditional master planning in order to get FAA funding for the tower, and defer land use planning into the future....sometime! That approach is compounded by the conscious ignoring of the fact that the majority of the impact of airport expansion falls on Wilsonville and Clackamas County, who have been uniformly excluded from the process.

[Download the ODT 08/10 Staff Report/Agenda here]

This conscious ignoring of the pertinent issues presented in the testimony given at the July 21 OTC hearing (see below), has prompted the City of Wilsonville to write a letter to OTC expressing their disappointment and detailing the infrastructure, land use and planning issues the staff report ignores.

[Download the City of Wilsonville letter here]

To add insult to injury, on August 19, the Oregon Aviation Board held a monthly meeting via teleconference, at which Mark Ottenad, Public/Government Affairs Director reiterated the concerns of the City of Wilsonville, Clackamas County, 1000 Friends and Friends of French Prairie, which was essentially derided and dismissed, and "The Board then passed a motion to approve designing the tower to budget and to use future Aurora AIP entitlement funds as needed for tower construction."

[Download the summary of the OAB meeting here]

This entire process is not only the funding cart ahead of the planning horse, but is more and more looking like a conspiracy of State agencies with private aviation interests to build an air traffic control tower that will fuel expansion and development via a process that has been gerrymandered to get around all State and local land use planning requirements. And who benefits? The less than 1% of Oregonians who own aircraft, and the business interests at the Aurora Airport who stand to make big bucks on business and real estate development at the Aurora Airport.




OREGON TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HEARS TESTIMONY AGAINST AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER PLAN - Posted July 22, 2010

On Wednesday, June 21, the Oregon Transportation Commission took public testimony in a hearing on the ConnectOregon III program, the funding source for master planning and siting an air traffic control tower at the Aurora Airport. This project has been ranked high on the funding list, but is fraught with problems, as detailed in the section below.

Public testimony was given by Friends of French Prairie, Clackamas County, the City of Wilsonville and 1000 Friends of Oregon, all centered on:

  • the need for completion of the master planning process before any release of funds for an air traffic control tower,
  • rectification of the current IGA that excludes Clackamas County and City of Wilsonville
  • the need for an open process that includes all impacted municipalities and citizens,
  • complete and thorough assessment of all the infrastructure mitigation that would be required.

You can download testimony below:

ODT CONNECTOREGON III DOCUMENT PACKAGE

To download the entire Oregon Department of Transportation document package, with ODA's  application for ConnectOregon III funding, letters of concern/support and the 2000 Aurora Airport Master Plan [click here to download PDF]




MARION COUNTY & ODA APPROVE IGA FOR AURORA AIRPORT

Over the course of the past two years, a great deal of activity has been afoot behind the scenes concerning the Aurora Airport. Most focused on the prospect of a getting funding and approval for an air traffic control tower at the airport. On June 7, Commissioner Milne presented a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to the County Board of Commissioners for approval. This IGA was approved and fast-tracked so that it could be signed and delivered to the Oregon Dept. of Aviation (ODA) the next day. The tower project has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and funding for it is pending the final decision of funds allocation from the ConnectOregon III program. The tower was reported by the Woodburn Independent to be number four on the project list (see article below) on June 17. These facts confirm that the application for funding the tower was submitted far in advance of updating the airport master plan.

The Costs and the Benefits

The obvious benefit of an air traffic control tower at the Aurora Airport is greatly improved safety for all aircraft operators. The airport is the second busiest in the state (after PDX) and has a mix of propeller and jet aircraft as well as helicopters. With its north-south runway axis a large percentage of flights approach or take off over Charbonneau and Wilsonville. An air traffic control tower would benefit aviation and improve safety by sequencing flights, and could mitigate noise impact by moving from visual approaches to more optimal flight paths. Cleary this is in the public interest.

The problem is that while improved safety is being touted as the reason for pursuing the tower, there are many other motivations--many very problematic--that have made the process conflicted and questionable. Citizens and communities have been excluded to the benefit of aviation interests. Land use planning laws have been ignored in favor of fast tracking the project. Funding applications are full of misrepresentation in order to put forward the appearance of unanimity. Important impacts like traffic mitigation have been deferred into the future in order to line up the approvals now. And at the end of it all, the outcome beyond safety is the potential for rampant development at the Aurora Airport.

Impacted Communities and Citizens

Wilsonville and Clackamas County have been trying to become a part of the airport master planning process for two years, as has Friends of French Prairie. The fact that the north end of the airport sits on the Marion-Clackamas County line, and that the north end of the runway is just south of the county line makes an indisputable case that much of the flight impact (noise, pollution, etc) will occur in Clackamas County, specifically in Charbonneau and Wilsonville. In the ten mile radius around the airport, the population concentration is in Wilsonville and Charbonneau, resulting in the following impact zone map prepared by the City of Wilsonville.


click image for enlarged view

The process to approve and fund the air traffic control tower has essentially been reduced to a negotiation between Commissioner Milne representing Marion County, the ODA, the FAA and aviation interests at the airport--who stand to financially gain from a tower. Excluded have been public hearings to solicit citizen input, as well as the Cities of Wilsonville & Canby and Clackamas County. Also ignored have been completion of the master planning process, assessment of long term impact on surrounding EFU farm land, assessment and mitigation of infrastructure requirements (such as surface roads, impact on the Boone Bridge, change in I-5 traffic levels, etc.), all for the purpose of getting FAA approval and funding in place now. Representatives of Wilsonville were specifically "uninvited" from one meeting with personnel from the FAA, so that their concerns would not be heard.

The application of ConnectOregon III funding is replete with misrepresentation, perhaps the most egregious being the answer given to the question: Can the project demonstrate support from public agencies that must approve the project? The answer provided: "Coordination required per IGA with Marion county and Aurora. Tower Master Plan study in progress and will be completed in 2010 with concurrence of counties of Clackamas, Marion and cities of Wilsonville, Canby and Aurora." This is patently false or at best, a gross overstatement, given the final form of the IGA that excluded Clackamas Co. and Wilsonville from any meaningful role in the master plan process, re-drew the impact zone map to exclude all parts of Clackamas Co., and did not include Canby at all.

The Marion County bias

The IGA approved by the Marion County Commissioners is between the County, ODA and the City of Aurora, and purposefully excluded Wilsonville and Clackamas County according to Commissioner Milne because "there is not a way Marion County can protect its own interests and follow land use planning guidelines and at the same time make Wilsonville and Clackamas County signing partners with equal standing to the IGA." Which is the politically correct way to say "we don't want to cede any power and control to the impacted parties because they may not want to do what we want to do."

[Download a copy of the Management Meeting minutes here]

Commissioner Milne is on record as referring to the Aurora Airport as "that little economic development engine in the north part of the County," and has fully supported all development proposals at the airport. Including the recent conditional use permit approval to allow Helicopter Transport Corp. to build a helicopter facility on the Netter-Collett property adjoining the airport--essentially allowing a "thru the fence" aviation use to occur on non-airport property.....and thereby threatening all the EFU land south of the airport.

It is hard to understand the motivation on the part of the Board of Commissioners to promote development at the Aurora Airport, where over 85% of registered aircraft owners and over 90% of business owners are not Marion County residents, instead of focusing on the Salem Airport--at the state capitol, the County seat and where there used to be commercial flights. And, where there already is an air traffic control tower! Why all this effort to improve and enhance an airport that caters to non-county residents, when Salem has an airport that needs development work?

The IGA is perfectly engineered to achieve local development goals and exclude anyone who might take exception. Consider the impact zone map incorporated into the IGA: it completely excludes all of Clackamas County, even though the north end of the runway almost sits on the County line and most flights must fly over (i.e. impact) Clackamas County and Wilsonville.


click image for enlarged view

FOFP Position on the Aurora Airport IGA

FOFP is fully supportive of the need for enhanced aviation safety at the Aurora Airport, the kind that an air traffic control tower could provide. However, it should be "tower and process" not "tower trumps process." The exclusion of Wilsonville and Clackamas County in the current IGA is incorrigible and is among the worst current examples of inter-governmental relations in the State. The position is indefensible on the face of it and requires the denial of geographic reality to support it. The way the IGA, the application Oregon has land use laws for a reason. The long term consequence of the tower approval without due process and the input of all parties will be rampant growth at the Aurora Airport. Consider this statement from the letter of support in the ConnectOregon III application from Xerox Corp: "Having a control tower, adding an ILS and increasing the runway length by 500 to 1000 feet will not only increase safety, it will expedite traffic in and out of the area and attrct even more business aircraft." It is unlikely that this is idle speculation. The forces behind the tower at the Aurora Airport envision massive development, and that comes at the expense of ag land south of the airport, plus all the other negative complications.

In February of this year, over protests by the City of Aurora and FOFP, the Marion Co. Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the requested designation submitted by US Leaseco (Helicopter Transport Corp). This approval converted EFU land to aviation usage. To the City of Aurora's point, doing so creates a precedent, essentially approving this property (which is not part of the Aurora Airport) for thru-the-fence aviation use. FOFP's opposition was based on the use of ag land for aviation purposes, and the implication for the other EFU land between the airport and the City boundary.




HELIPORT ZONE CHANGE REQUEST ADJOINING AURORA AIRPORT

On March 31, 2009, U S Leaseco, Inc, a Delaware corporation with a local address in Corvallis filed an application to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Primary Agriculture to Public, seeking an exception to Statewide Planning Goals 3 (Agricultural Lands) and 14 (Urbanization) and for a conditional use for airport related uses on a 27.48 acre parcel located at 14497 Keil Rd and 22265 Airport Rd NE, Aurora, OR.

This is the same property for which the previous owners (Netter & Collett) submitted a zone change application in 2007 and withdrew it in July, 2008. In the past nine months U S Leaseco has acquired the Netter/Collett property and is seeking a zone change to construct a helicopter landing zone, 5 helicopter pads and a helicopter hangar on the property, allowing 'through the fence' access to the airport to enable a giant commercial helicopter operation and a massive increase in aviation traffic at Aurora Airport.

[Download a copy of the Land Use Request/Request For Comments (3/31/09)]

US Leaseco is a large helicopter charter service, operating 80 helicopters in the United States, Canada, and overseas. Their intent is to relocate their western US operations from Corvallis and consolidate them on this property adjacent to the Aurora Airport. This is made possible by “through the fence” airport access at the Aurora Airport (one of three Oregon airports eligible to participate).

The applicant intends to construct a 126,000 square foot hangar facility, including component and engine overhaul shop, inventory facility and management office space. The application requests a “reasons” exception” to Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 14, requesting an urban use on rural land, and from Primary Agriculture to Public, as well as the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Public (P).


click image to enlarge

[Download engineering drawing of US Leaseco Hangar & Helipad drawing in PDF]

The application for the requested changes attempts to make the case that:

  • There is a need for property to expand airport operations and the subject property is the most appropriate location for expansion.
  • The economic benefits to be accrued to the immediate area by this facility with its projected 160 full time jobs (by the end of the 5th year of operation).
  • An onsite well and septic system will be feasible to handle the required demands of the proposed use.
  • No anticipated limitations exist to the air, water, energy and land resources.

[Download the entire US Leaseco Application for zoning change in PDF]


Preserving Agricultural Lands First

Subject property does abut the Aurora Airport at its southeast corner. It and the property directly north, as well as the property east of Airport Road and south of Keil Road are all zoned EFU. The property is adjacent to the airport and has an access road (Yellow Gate Lane) to the Airport, but none of that changes the fact that this is agricultural land, zoned EFU with Class 1 soils. The previous owners made the assertion in an earlier zoning attempt (which they withdrew in the face of opposition) that all of this property is comprised of low quality soils.

A look at the aerial map below quickly shows how misleading this assertion about poor quality land was. The airport is essentially surrounded by EFU agricultural land, with a few exceptions. Most of the land to the west across Highway 51 and all the land to the east across Airport Road is intensively farmed. The majority of the land to the south and southeast is zoned EFU and is being farmed.


click image to enlarge

What is wrong with this application?

There are two principal problems.

  1. The subject property is one of 17 pieces of property to the south and southeast of the airport. As pointed out, this is the only expansion direction available to the airport. The last piece of land to be integrated into the airport was not in agricultural usage and became the airport water and septic facility. This property, and the adjoining 16 pieces of property are all agricultural farm land with high quality soil. If one goes, the odds are very high on all the rest being "integrated" into the airport sooner or later. If the property owners want to sell their land, they should do so within the zoning and to people who plan on farming.
  2. The fact that the Aurora Airport sits in the middle of high quality farm land through a quirk of fate (the need for a second airport during World War II) does not minimize the value of the farm land. The economic interests and desires of the airport and the private commercial interest therein do not de-value the surrounding farm land. The purpose of Statewide Planning Goal 3 is to protect agricultural land.

Expansion pressures from Metro Portland in the past two decades have made the I-5 corridor south of the Willamette River among the most pressured to convert agricultural land for development. This area is the Gateway to the Willamette Valley-that is to say, the gateway from Metro Portland to the most fertile and productive lands in the state and the world. It has to be treated as such. All development in this area has to be considered with great care, and the value of the farm land has to be a major element in the assessment.

The starting point has to be that farmland should be preserved not developed. Climate change, rising fuel costs, contamination of imported commodities and other factors have all contributed to the understanding that we must "think global but buy local." The fact is we may desperately need our farm land in a few years, and one certainty will always prevail: when farm land is taken out of agricultural usage and paved over, it never goes back.


FOFP's Position on this application

FOFP is strongly opposed to this application and the conversion of any farmland for non-agricultural purpose where the change serves only a very small minority interest (those in the aviation industry) and does so at the long term expense of farming, farmers and our land.

Beyond the principle of converting Agricultural Land with Class 1 soils into urban uses, the other problems with the application include:

  • The so-called “need” presented in the application for an expansion of airport related business is an expression of the Applicants business desires. No such “need” is defined in the 1976 Aurora Airport Master Plan or it’s October, 2000 update. Rather, this property is described therein only as “acceptable for airport-related development.”
  • The economic benefit to be locally derived rides on the back of current infrastructure, and is premised on the assertions that very little additional traffic will be created, or other infrastructure service needs.
  • Water usage by the industrial applications would likely strain existing water supplies, already problematic is this part of French Prairie; further the sewage waste created by 160 personnel are far beyond septic tank capacity in a small portion of this 27 acre property.
  • The increase in helicopter flights will contribute substantial noise pollution to the surrounding area, especially to the residential areas south of subject property, as well as raise significant safety issues by adding a large quantity of helicopter traffic to the existing Aurora Airport traffic patterns without a control tower.

[Download Friends of French Prairie's Letter of Opposition to this application in PDF]

What is missing in this discussion is an Area or Regional Master Plan for the northern end of the Willamette Valley. FOFP is calling on Marion County and the leaders of the municipalities involved to table all development and begin the process of formulating a long term Master Plan for the area bounded by the north Marion County line, Ehlen Road, the Pudding River and Butteville Road. Until such a plan is completed, with adequate public input from citizens and municipalities, only agriculture-related development consistent with the current zoning should be allowed to go forward.





Aurora Airport Expansion

The Aurora Airport is already the busiest municipal airport in Oregon in terms of small plane take offs & landings, and has been the subject of numerous expansion and development proposals over the years. The most recent was Sen. Betsy Johnson's attempt in the final days of the 2007 Oregon Legislative session to sponsor legislation that would have created a self-directed taxing district to enable "tax increment funding" of sewer and water development without the governance of a local government.

Many economic interests, outside our community seek unbridled commercial development with no meaningful input from the people who live here and deal with the consequences. Fortunately, media coverage of this self-serving legislation resulted in a public outcry which assured the measure's death in committee at the Legislature. We are now seeing those interests back, motivated by the large profits of such a land speculation selling prime farmland for commercial and industrial development next to this 'rural' airport.

A New Expansion Threat

Apart from this application for a helicopter operation, for the airport to expand significantly, it needs an FAA-regulated control tower. Marion County has previously applied for full or partial financing for a new airport tower from state Connect Oregon II, Intermodal Transportation funds, generated by higher vehicle registration fees.
The presence of a control tower is part of the intention behind the Rural Airport Expansion bill, and would allow two significant things to happen at Aurora Airport besides the addition of a new helicopter facility:

  • Relocation of many corporate jets from Hillsboro to Aurora to provide more convenient access for corporate owners.
  • Significant airport-related developments, such as a rumored air freight hub located away from Portland International Airport.

Any of these developments would greatly increase local traffic on Hwy 551 (the Canby/Hubbard cutoff), I-5 access at Charbonneau and the Donald/Aurora exits, increase noise pollution for Charbonneau and Aurora, and stress the limited local infrastructure.

This has the potential to become the springboard for much bigger commercial developments, such as the Langdon Farms casino project or the conversion of Langdon Farms or other property adjoining the airport into light industrial developments. All of these will add pollution, traffic and will convert prime farmland to ugly industrial sprawl - not the vision the local community has for its future.

What's Wrong With Development Here?

The big missing ingredient is municipal infrastructure. The Aurora Airport is located in Marion County and is not within the urban growth boundary (UGB) of any of the nearby cities or towns. That means it doesn't have municipal access to development funds and, more importantly, has no municipal oversight. Being outside of an UGB means that development there would lack the local control, checks and balances built into Oregon's land use laws - especially if it could achieve an independent taxing authority such as likely in any Rural Airport Expansion bill. that proposed by Sen. Betsy Johnson and her supporters in the aviation community.

The Aurora Airport is located on prime farm land in northeast French Prairie, is surrounded by agriculture, and sits squarely on EFU zoned land. It is also, along with Langdon Farms, part of the "doorway to the Willamette Valley" heading south from metro Portland. Development here has to be done carefully and with a long term view. Rampant and unchecked development would not only severely damage this local part of French Prairie, but could be the beginning of a development conduit down I-5 to Salem. Once farm land is gone, it never comes back.


click image to enlarge

A better alternative is to keep Airport activity inside Urban Growth Boundaries, as is the case with the Salem and Hillsboro airports. Airports and associated developments are urban uses and should be kept out of farm country. Keeping Aurora Airport small, uncontrolled airspace will help protect this area from land speculation and unwise industrialization - there are clearly other, better places for this kind of urbanization.

What's Wrong With a Control Tower?

In principle, nothing! However, recent development options have been pushed by private interests who stand to benefit from the airport expansion, an in practice there are at least three things:

  • First, what's missing? The public! The local residents who will be most impacted have had almost no say, and the public has been kept out by special interests.
       click image to enlarge

    Those with vested long term interests, but who are being kept in the dark about the true intentions of the airport development are:
    • Charbonneau residents in the flight path of the airport, within 10,000 feet of the center of the runway.
    • Local residents who live within five miles of the airport and will have to suffer high volumes of traffic, including the communities of Wilsonville, Aurora, Donald, Canby, Hubbard and Woodburn. All citizens within five miles of the Aurora Airport should have an active say in the future of this facility.
    • Local businesses and residents who frequently suffer increased traffic, noise and air pollution from the commercial aviation activity at this airport including helicopters and corporate jet traffic.

         click image to enlarge
    • The above impact map is based on an FAA standard of 14,000 feet around an airport, and shows the impact on the ground-but note, that the ring rises in the air as a cone representing airspace around the airport. That leads to the second point: it is entirely inappropriate for a development that is essentially a "municipal and public" asset like an airport to be developed without the impacted municipalities being involved and having a seat at the table. The absence of the public is a clear violation of Land Use Goal 1 - Public Involvement.
  • Second, it is entirely inappropriate for a development that is essentially a "municipal and public" asset like an airport to be developed without the impacted municipalities being involved and having a seat at the table. The absence of the public is a clear violation of Land Use Goal 1 - Public Involvement.
  • Third, the existing Aurora Airport master plan is ten years old and out of date, and the current expansion is going forward without a master plan. An airport expansion of this scope needs to have an updated master plan, be part of a larger French Prairie master plan that includes all effected municipalities, solicits public input, and gives emphasis to protecting the 'agricultural foundation lands' which are the best in the work, unique and threatened by development.

This kind of development should also fit into state-wide goals. For instance, as Salem Municipal Airport expands and adds commercial flights, shouldn't significant airport expansion in north Willamette Valley occur there, in an urban and commercial setting, rather than in the middle of an agricultural area? Alternatives to Aurora Airport Expansion should be considered. Are there other airports already within Urban Growth Boundaries where this growth in aviation should be focused, where there are not the negative impacts on prime agricultural lands?

FOFP Position on the Aurora Airport Expansion

FOFP believes that while development at the Aurora Airport is likely, no development should occur without a new master plan that includes active participation of all effected communities, and also includes adequate public hearings. We have sent a letter to the Marion County Commissioners requesting that the tower funding request be withdrawn and a public hearing process begun.

[Download the letter in PDF]

News Coverage:

Aurora Airport summit offers insight
September 23, 2015
[Download PDF here]

Airport Economic Benefit is Small
January 14, 2014
[Download PDF here]

Reader View: Airport is vital to region’s economy
December 18, 2013
[Download PDF here]

Reader View: Full Story Not Being Told
December 11, 2013
[Download PDF here]

Aurora control tower up in the air
November 27, 2013
[Download PDF here]

Reader View: Noise is still a problem at Aurora Airport
October 1, 2013
[Download PDF here]

Aurora State Airport: Finding Its Economic Footing
September 24, 2013
[Download PDF here]

Aurora Airport Master Plan contains more than $20 million
September 28, 2011
[Download PDF here]

City officials target runway expansion
Sunday, August 21, 2011
[Download PDF here]

Woodburn IndependentInterest groups wait for next step in Aurora State Airport process
July 6, 2011
[Download PDF here]

The OregonianAviation board advances limited Aurora State Airport runway extension
June 24, 2011
[Download PDF here]

The OregonianOfficials to make Aurora State Airport development decision today
June 22, 2011
[Download PDF here]

Salem to pursue a runway extension
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
[Download PDF here]

Some want Oregon rural airports to get urban renewal
Thursday, May 5, 2011
[Download PDF here]

The OregonianA proposal rejects lengthening the runway for at least two decades
April 8, 2011
[Download PDF here]

Woodburn IndependentNo runway extension recommended for Aurora State Airport
April 6, 2011
[Download PDF here]

Woodburn IndependentAurora wants to annex airport
March 28, 2011
[Download PDF here]

Woodburn IndependentAviation chairman takes on Wilsonville and Clackamas County
March 16, 2011
[Download PDF here]

Woodburn IndependentAirport meeting draws crowd of nearly 100
March 16, 2011
[Download PDF here]

Three nonhighway projects in area to get funding
August 26, 2010
[Download PDF here]

FAA Criticizes Clem's oversight of Aurora Airport
August 25, 2010
[Download PDF here]

Control tower funding takes off before planning
August 24, 2010
[Download PDF here]

Woodburn IndependentControl tower planning begins despite concerns
July 29, 2010
[Download PDF here]

Meeting about Aurora Airport to be Thursday
July 17, 2010
[Download PDF here]

Three Mid-Valley projects to ease transportation
July 17, 2010
[Download PDF here]

Aurora air traffic control tower makes priority list
for state funding

June 17, 2010
[Download PDF here]

Airport changes causing concerns
January 30, 2008
[Download PDF here]

Airport zoning upsets growers
Friday, March 14, 2008
[Download PDF here]

Home  | About FOFP | Area History | Sustainable Agriculture | Branding Initiative | Current Issues | Historic Sites | Join Us | Contact