Read the July 8, 2008 VABA Press Release
 
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Venice, Florida, July 08, 2008


Venice Airport runway 4/22 unsafe for jet and turboprop aircraft?

The Venice Airport Business Association (“VABA”) announces an advisory warning regarding the condition of the Venice Municipal Airport runway 4/22 (the preferred noise abatement runway). The Association has received ongoing complaints from pilots and aircraft owners that confirm that this runway may no longer be safe to use. The VABA advised the Venice Mayor and City Council of this condition months ago, however, to date nothing has been done to warn users of the airport or limit the use of this runway. Recently, the City Council has denied the Association time on its agenda to again address the Council on this and other urgent Airport matters.


Severe cracking in the entire runway surface and standing water indicate that the infrastructure of 4/22 has deteriorated to the extent that immediate rehabilitation is needed to cure this potentially dangerous condition. City officials have been aware of the runway condition for more than three years since the issuance of an engineering study by Allied Engineering and Testing, Inc. on January 20, 2005. That company reported that “the cracks have signs of oxidation and weathering, indicating that they are not recent cracks.” Furthermore, boring tests performed by the Allied firm indicated that there was penetration of two entire layers of asphalt that have caused severe deterioration of the base material. Under those conditions, re-surfacing is not feasible, and the company recommended that the entire runway structure must be rehabilitated.


A tire blowout or an engine flameout due to splashing water could cause a major accident with disastrous consequences. One frequent visitor reported a significant “bump or contour” prior to the intersection with runway 13/31. Another stated that the surface of 4/22 was “in such exceptionally poor condition as to compromise effective braking.” He said, “The question is not IF someone is going to get hurt but WHEN someone will be hurt or killed.”


The City’s Airport management has recently received an engineering report that states, “Runway 4-22 has a base with substandard strength and elastic properties, similar to Runway 13-31 before it was rehabilitated. A heavy aircraft could experience a shear failure similar to that which happened at SRQ back in the 1980’s.” The airport office also has statistics that indicate that, due to that runway deterioration, many of the jet and turboprop aircraft that now use Runway 4/22 may exceed its maximum weight-bearing load. Pilots and aircraft owners should request guidance from the airport’s management before using 4/22.


VABA urgently requests that the airport management, Mayor and City Council ask the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) and the Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) to inspect this runway thoroughly and to take all necessary steps in its power to remedy the situation without further delay. Until the community is assured that this runway is safe, all air traffic should consider avoiding Runway 4/22 and use Runway 13/31 instead.



Recent actions of the City Council could cost Venice taxpayers millions of dollars


The City of Venice has been aware of the potentially unsafe condition of 4/22, as well as other issues of safety and regulatory compliance at the Airport since at least last April, yet no action has been taken to begin to correct them. On the contrary, Council's recent actions clearly indicate that they may never intend to do so. They have put off indefinitely the delivery of a Master Plan Update and Airport Layout Plan (“MPU/ALP”) to the state and federal governments, that is most likely now a pre-condition for government financial assistance, and is required by their obligations as airport Sponsor and Manager. They have canceled previous funding requests to the state and federal governments for badly needed capital improvements to Runway 4/22 (the preferred noise abatement runway), the taxiways and many other items that impact safety. These capital improvements are estimated to cost between five and fifteen million dollars. The Council appears to mistakenly believe that this is the end of the matter. They are wrong.


The City Council appears to be mired in a political controversy that is irrelevant to the central issues. When the City of Venice took title to the Airport from the United States Government, it entered into original Deed and subsequent Grant Assurances that require the City to maintain the airport in a safe and usable condition without discrimination, irrespective of who pays for it. The Deed Assurances “run with the land” and are therefore obligations of the City in perpetuity. These obligations cannot legally (and should not morally) be abrogated by the actions of a few political activists who have moved near the Airport and are now offended by its presence.


The state and federal governments can move to enforce these obligations, and where safety is concerned VABA believes that it is very likely that they will ultimately do so. In that event, Venice taxpayers will be left holding the bag for many millions of dollars, not to mention the ongoing liability of operating the airport with known unsafe conditions in the event there is injury to life or property as a result.


VABA has tried to mediate between the City Council and the FAA

The Venice Municipal Code requires the City to update the Airport Master Plan every five years. The present Plan is now eight years old. While there is some flexibility in the time period for completion of the MPU, it must be completed and approved before any state or federal money can be forthcoming. VABA has expended many hours since the beginning of this year in an attempt to bring the City Council and the FAA together in agreement on the current MPU/ALP. There are several continuing differences, but the principal ones on the surface concern the placement of Runway Safety Zones (“RSA’s”), the Runway Object Free Areas (”ROFA’s”) and the Runway Protection Zones (“RPZ’s”).


The City Council has totally rejected a completed MPU/ALP prepared by the MEA/Hanson engineering firm at a cost of about $330,000 to the federal and state governments. This document contains several alternative placements of the Runway Safety and Protection Zones. Some members of the Council have stated that they will never agree to approve placement of the Runway Protection Zones outside of the Airport grounds limit because that would affect the houses located under or near those zones.


Some patrons of the Lake Venice Golf Course, which is located on Airport property and (as confirmed by the FAA) clearly exists primarily for the benefit of the Airport, have complained to Council that bringing the Airport configuration up to date in conformity with contemporary FAA SAFETY design standards will impact the design and configuration of the course.


As a result, the City Council has recently announced a call for a different engineering firm that will redraw the ALP to show all of the runway safety and protection zones within the physical survey of the Airport, contrary to FAA standards.


The result of this action is that the City will be wasting its own money to create an ALP that the FAA has said in advance it would reject. The Orlando office of the FAA recently advised the Mayor, the City Manager and the Airport Manager that the proper procedure is to submit a plan that meets FAA engineering standards, and ask for a modification of standards where, and only if, compliance is not practicable. The Council’s refusal to do this will stall the proper submission of any MPU/ALP indefinitely.


The Council’s actions will assure that the FAA schedule cannot be met


The FAA, at a May 8th, 2008 Orlando meeting with City officials, set a deadline of August 31st, 2008 for submission of an MPU/ALP. The Council’s quest for an engineering firm that will draw the ALP their way assures that this deadline will not be met. While the date is not absolutely final at this point, VABA believes it is becoming apparent to the FAA and FDOT that this City Council, as constituted, will not cooperate with those agencies, and is intent on hindering the normal safe and efficient operation of our Airport. This rift with the governmental authorities could continue well beyond the respective Council members’ terms of office, and result in permanent damage to the Airport and to all Venice taxpayers.


The only justifications offered by the Council for these actions is the potential impact on the Golf Course and that any extension of Runway Protection Zones beyond the boundaries of the airport will result in a lowering of property values in the vicinity of those zones, and a possible taking of the properties by the FAA.


However, the Orlando FAA office has already assured the Council, both at the May 8th meeting and via letter written May 29th, 2008 that no homes located in any RPZ will be taken without the City’s initiative and consent. That leaves as the only justification for the Council’s actions, the possible impact on property values affecting a small class of homeowners, in a city of more than 19,000 people.


Interestingly, VABA has discovered, through research on the Sarasota County web site that the public records indicate that homes located in the Gulf Shores and southern Golden Beach subdivisions of Venice have existed in, or near, RPZ like “designated airspace” specifically termed “Airport Zone Lines” since the mid 1960s. Property values have increased steadily over those years.


Clearly, the airport was here long before the current neighboring homeowners, and they knew or should have known that they were moving into the original footprint of the federal grant of the land to the City of Venice. Not unlike moving near to an Interstate Highway, they should also have known that traffic has a tendency to increase over a period of years. The Venice Airport traffic has increased only very modestly in recent years, contrary to the opinions of some nearby homeowners. Nevertheless, it is the mandate of the state and federal governments that the City of Venice is obligated to serve whatever increased traffic does occur, without discrimination.


The Mayor and the City Council should end their war on the airport


In addition to the above actions, the Council has disregarded the recommendations of the Airport Advisory Board, and even threatened to eliminate it entirely. They have refused to recognize their obligations to defend the Airport and to plan for and meet the demand for normal services and reasonable development of capital improvements by private investors. They have complained about airport noise, but blocked an FAA study that could mandate noise abatement procedures.


Since the last election, the Council has purported to follow a policy of “containment” with regard to our Airport, which in reality is a campaign of attrition, aimed to cripple its operations and doom its future. These actions follow the script of certain neighborhood associations that have waged warfare on aviation in Venice for some time. As we have pointed out, the nearby residents have no legal or moral right to complain about the airport in the absence of any violations of law by its tenants and operators. The only result of the Council’s recent actions will be great harm to the entire City and its taxpayers. Therefore, we call upon the Mayor and the City Council to immediately change the course of their actions as follows:


  1. Apply to the FAA to issue an advisory warning Notice to Airmen (“NOTAM”) regarding the condition of the Venice Municipal Airport Runway 4/22;


  1. Ask the FAA and the FDOT to inspect Runway 4/22 thoroughly immediately;


  1. Begin the engineering/bidding process to rehabilitate the entire structure of Runway 4/22 immediately;


  1. Rescind their vote to seek a new engineering firm, and work with MEA/Hanson to submit the MEA/Hanson plan to the FAA and FDOT, with their requested Modifications to Standards not later than August 31st, 2008;


  1. Begin a dialog with the owners of the Golf Course, as the VABA has, with respect to alterations to the course that may be necessary to bring the Airport into regulatory compliance;


  1. Follow all state and federal laws, rules and regulations that have created obligations of the City of Venice to maintain the airport as a safe, usable and economically viable operation, without discrimination of any sort;


  1. Begin defending the Venice Municipal Airport, one of this City’s most important historical icons and economic engines, by passing a resolution to implement a public information effort to educate the citizenry regarding the City of Venice’s obligations to the Airport.


The Venice Municipal Airport is owned by all of the citizens and taxpayers of Venice. It is the Gateway to our City by Air, a link in the vital national air transportation system and the Florida Intermodal Transportation System as well as a refueling and staging stop for our armed services. The importance of general aviation airports during a major disaster was ably demonstrated during Hurricane Charley, when the Charlotte County airport served as a vital means of access and staging.


The Venice Airport should not be destroyed by a Mayor and City Council who follow a scenario written by a small, self-interested group of nearby residents. The safety and rights of Airport users and the fiscal responsibility of Airport operations must come first.



* * * * * *

For further information, contact:

Chuck Schmieler, President

Venice Airport Business Association

vabassociation@gmail.com


HOME