Airport Commission

Menomonie Airport Commission Meeting Minutes May 15, 2024 The Menomonie Airport Commission was called to order by Dr. Dan Johnson at 4:30 pm on Wednesday May 15, 2024 in the City Council Chambers. Other Commission members present included: Steven Lee, Randy Sommerfeld, Kerry McCauley, and Earl Wildenberg. Others in attendance included: David Schofield (City of Menomonie), Darrel Gibson (Gibson Aviation), Melissa Underwood, Ryan Falch Caleb Rosenberg and Christopher Brett (SEH), Tyler Leslie (WisBOA) and Erik Guenard (UW-Stout). Johnson asked for public comments. No public comments were received. Johnson moved to approve April 17, 2024 minutes. Seconded by Sommerfeld. Motion carried. Underwood indicated that WisBOA and FAA have not yet approved the forecasts. Underwood presented observations regarding Runway 9/27 (east/west). Length, width and pavement strength meet standards. Pavement, particularly at the west end, will need to be monitored for deterioration. PAPIs will need to be replaced. Hold short lines will need to be adjusted outside of safety areas. Seven existing tie-downs are within the runway visibility area. Gibson asked about the useful load criteria as using 90% could justify 6,200 foot runway. Underwood indicated that users must prove at least 500 operations of large aircraft operating at 90% useful load. Schofield asked if FAA could require runway to be shortened to 4,700 feet. Underwood indicated that the existing runway length of 5,075 feet is justifiable. Underwood reviewed runway safety area and obstruction analysis. Several minor improvements will be included in the master plan. Underwood indicated that the three-quarter mile visibility minimum on Runway 27 (westerly) could require extensive land acquisition and building demolition. Underwood recommended increasing the visibility minimum on Runway 27 to one mile. McCauley moved to move forward with increasing the visibility minimum on Runway 27 to one mile. Seconded by Johnson. Motion carried. Underwood presented observations regarding Runway 18/36 (south/north). Length and pavement strength meets standards. Width exceeds standards. PAPIs will need to be replaced. REILs could be considered. Schofield noted that the City would like to be mindful of neighbors with respect to flashing lights. Johnson noted that a non-precision approach on at least one end of 18/36 is desired. Underwood reviewed runway safety area and obstruction analysis. Several minor improvements will be included in the master plan. The ridge south of the airport contains several obstructions. Schofield noted that the City purchased easements thereon for tree clearing. Underwood presented observations regarding taxiway network. All taxiways meet standards. Taxiway A width is 40 feet vs. 35-foot standard. Taxiway B width is 40 feet vs. 25-foot standard. Johnson noted that gliders require additional taxiway width. Underwood indicated that the existing taxiway widths can likely be justified. Underwood presented observations regarding navigational aids. AWOS will be replaced in the future. Existing location meets AWOS siting standards. Underwood presented final landside alternatives. Apron area alternative was discussed. Johnson asked that the 79-foot clearance envelope be checked through the fuel tank area. Schofield asked about adding additional tie-downs near terminal. Gibson indicated that corporate jets usually pull in there to load/unload passengers. West hangar area alternative was discussed. SEH will revise figure to reflect the reduced primary surface setback based upon the revised visibility minimum for Runway 27. Underwood presented information regarding Rice Lake and New Richmond airports regarding increased operations after runway lengthening projects. Operations of large aircraft did not increase substantially after runway extensions were completed. Schofield noted that Rice Lake is now considering reducing the length of one of their runways. Underwood indicated that the next master plan meeting will be Wednesday July 10 at 4:30pm at City Hall. Discussion topics will include wrapups of airside facility recommendations and alternatives and capital improvement planning. Underwood asked for committee members to take a thumb drive and review the inventory chapter. Schofield notified the committee that a lease agreement has been sent to Augustin. Johnson asked if the lease amount of $240 per year was appropriate. Schofield noted that the proposed hangar was smaller than two of the existing hangars. Schofield indicated that the City may look at per square foot lease payments at some point in the future, particularly when the north and west hangar areas are developed. Schofield notified the committee that letters will be going out to all lessors regarding hangars being used for primarily aviation uses. Gibson presented the airport manager’s report. Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Sommerfeld. Motion carried. Submitted by: David Schofield, Recording Secretary  MINUTES Menomonie Municipal Airport (LUM) Master Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting Wednesday, May 15, 2024 4:30 p.m. Menomonie City Hall / Virtual Copies to: Attendees Airport Commission Wisconsin Bureau of Aeronautics Dan Johnson Tyler Leslie (Virtual) Randy Sommerfeld Earl Wildenberg UW-Stout Kerry McCauley Guenard, Erik (Virtual) Steven Lee SEH City of Menomonie Melissa Underwood David Schofield Ryan Falch (Virtual) Chris Brett (Virtual) Gibson Aviation Caleb Rosenberg (Virtual) Darrel Gibson I. Welcome II. Master Plan Process & Schedule Update A. Forecasting process will be pushed out while we seek BOA and FAA approval of the adjusted forecasts. III. Airside Facility Recommendations A. Runway 9/27 1. Runway Characteristics a. Length, width, and pavement strength meet standards. b. Pavement will need to be monitored in the future. c. PAPI’s will need to be replaced. d. Hold lines will need to be adjusted to be outside of safety areas. e. 7 existing tiedowns are within the existing runway visibility zone. 2. Runway Length a. SEH recommends maintaining existing length of 5,075’ based on forecasted operations and AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirement for Airport Design standards. b. How is Useful Load number determined? (1) Pulled from AC, averaged at 60%. (2) Users must prove 500 operations of large aircraft operating at 90% useful load through written statements. (3) SEH to share Advisory Circular showing useful load calculation. c. SAC will continue to consider showing a runway extension in the future. Master Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting Wednesday, March 15, 2024 Page 2 3. Design Standards a. With current approach design standards, Runway 9/27 has a 1,000’ Part 77 Primary Surface, which would require property acquisition and limited building area development. b. Two options (1) Propose B-II small as the critical aircraft which would potentially reduce the runway length funded with BOA and FAA funds to meet small aircraft design standards. This would allow the ¾ visibility minimums to remain on the Runway 27 approach. (2) Increase Runway 27 visibility minimums to 1 mile, which reduces the primary surface width to 500 feet. c. SAC prefers increasing the visibility minimums to 1 mile for Runway 27. (1) The Airport Commission members voted to move forward with increasing visibility minimums to Runway 27. (2) Changes to the approach will be included on the ALP. FAA lines of business and BOA will review and initiate the update process; process anticipated to take 2-3 years. 4. RSA Determination a. Minor grading issues; will be adjusted with the next runway rehab/reconstruction project. b. No RSA obstructions. c. The RSA determination will be submitted to the BOA for their review and approval. 5. Obstruction Analysis a. Some obstructions to the existing runway surfaces have been noted; analysis still being finalized. b. Runway surfaces will change with higher approach minimums. c. The City noted some obstructions on Runway 27 end have already been cleared. SEH will verify this information with the data gathered through the AGIS process. B. Runway 18/36 1. Runway Characteristics a. Length meets standards, width is wider than standard. b. Pavement Condition will need to be monitored in the future. c. Pavement strength exceeds standards. d. PAPIs will need to be replaced, and REILs considered to be added to both runway ends. (1) City would like to be mindful of the neighbors and the impacts the REILs could have on the homes to the north and south of the runway. e. The SAC would like to consider the addition of a non-precision approach procedure on at least one runway end. 2. Runway Length a. Justified to maintain crosswind and keep existing length based on wind coverage, forecasted operations, and AC 150/5325-4B. 3. Design Standards a. Meets design standards for A/B-I, small aircraft. 4. RSA Determination a. Minor grading issues; will be adjusted with a runway rehab/reconstruction project in the future. b. No RSA obstructions. c. The RSA determination will be submitted to the BOA for their review and approval. 5. Obstruction Analysis a. Some obstructions to the existing runway surfaces have been noted; analysis still being finalized. b. The City is in the process of removing the trees along the ridge on the Runway 36. There is an existing easement in this area. c. Obstructions were evaluated for future non-precision approach procedures to each runway end. (1) No major issues to Runway 18 end. Master Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Meeting Wednesday, March 15, 2024 Page 3 (2) Additional tree obstructions to the future approach surfaces on Runway 36 end. C. Taxiway Network 1. Everything meets/exceeds standards. 2. Parallel Taxiway A is 40 feet wide and the design standards for that taxiway allow for a 35-foot width. 3. Parallel Taxiway B is 40 feet wide and the design standards for that taxiway allow for a 25-foot width. a. SAC noted that a based glider needs more than a 25-foot-wide taxiway for operations. (1) This information will be documented for justification to maintain the larger taxiway widths. D. Navigational Aids 1. AWOS will be replaced in the future. a. Existing location meets AWOS siting standards. IV. Final Landside Alternatives A. Apron Alternative 1. SEH will verify 79-foot clearance through fuel area. 2. SAC decided against adding any tiedowns near terminal building. a. Cardinal Glass uses area to drop passengers. B. Building Area 1. SEH will revise figure to show smaller Primary Surface based on increased visibility minimums. 2. SAC noted that there isn’t a large demand for 100’ x 100’ hangars. 3. SAC also noted that any T-hangars built would be filled. V. TFMSC Comparison A. Operations for RPD & RNH a. Operations of large aircraft did not substantially change after runway extension was completed. VI. Additional Comments A. Costs of reducing taxiway widths may prove more than rehabbing what is currently there. A discussion with the BOA and FAA will take place when taxiway is in need of rehab/reconstruction. VII. Next Steps A. SEH will wrap up airside facility recommendations & alternatives. B. SAC to review of Inventory Chapter C. Next SAC meeting – July 10 at 4:30pm 1. Finish any items to wrap up from the facility recommendation discussion 2. Review Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) x:\uz\w\wiboa\174152\1-genl\16-meet\sac mtg #4 - airside recs\lum fac recs & alts meeting minutes_05152024.docx