DOCSLIB.ORG

State Land Use Board of Appeals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JOSEPH SCHAEFER, CITY OF AURORA, CITY OF WILSONVILLE, 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON, and FRIENDS OF FRENCH PRAIRIE, Petitioners, and CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Intervenor-Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE AVIATION BOARD and OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, Respondents, and AURORA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, BRUCE BENNETT, WILSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC., TED MILLAR, TLM HOLDINGS, LLC, ANTHONY ALAN HELBLING, and WILSONVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Intervenor-Respondents. LUBA Nos. 2019-123/127/129/130 PETITIONER CITY OF WILSONVILLE’S PETITION FOR REVIEW September 21, 2020 Counsel appear on the following page. Joseph Schaefer Lucinda D. Jackson 15140 Park Ave NE Rachel E. Bertoni Aurora OR 97002 Oregon Department of Justice 503.819.4764 1162 Court St NE Petitioner Salem OR 97301 503.947.4530 Sara Kendrick Attorney for Respondents Kendrick Law, LLC 317 Court St NE Ste 203 Eric S. Postma Salem OR 97301 Bittner & Hahs PC 503.369.8323 4949 SW Meadows Rd Ste 260 Attorney for Petitioner Lake Oswego OR 97035 City of Aurora 503.228.5626 Attorney for Intervenor-Respondent Andrew Mulkey Wilsonville Chamber of Commerce Rural Lands Staff Attorney 1000 Friends of Oregon Wendie L. Kellington 133 SW 2nd Ave Ste 201 Kellington Law Group Portland OR 97204 PO Box 159 503.497.1000 x138 Lake Oswego OR 97034 Attorney for Petitioners 1000 Friends 503.636.0069 of Oregon and Friends of Attorney for remaining French Prairie Intervenor-Respondents Stephen L. Madkour Scott A. Norris Nathan Boderman Marion County Legal Counsel County Counsel PO Box 14500 Clackamas County Salem OR 97309 2051 Kaen Rd 503.588.5220 Oregon City OR 97045 Attorney for Amicus Curiae 503.655.8362 Marion County Attorneys for Intervenor-Petitioner Clackamas County Page i 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. STANDING ................................................................................................... 1 3 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................... 1 4 A. Nature of the Challenged Decision and Relief Sought ......................... 1 5 B. Summary of the Arguments ................................................................... 2 6 C. Summary of Material Facts .................................................................... 4 7 1. Aurora Airport Master Plans ............................................................ 4 8 2. Findings of Compatibility and Compliance...................................... 6 9 D. Statement of Board’s Jurisdiction ......................................................... 9 10 III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERRORS ................................................................ 9 11 A. First Assignment of Error: Respondents Adopted Findings for a 12 Master Plan Never Adopted, in Contravention of Goal 2 and Their Own 13 Land Use Regulations, Attempting to Affirm Eight Years Later ............... 9 14 1. Statement of Preservation .................................................................. 9 2. Standard of Review ............................................................................. 9 15 3. Argument ........................................................................................... 10 16 a. The 2011/2012 Master Plan Was Never Adopted .......................... 10 17 18 b. 2011 Meetings .................................................................................... 11 19 i. September 15, 2011 PAC Meeting ................................................ 11 20 ii. October 27, 2011 OAB Meeting ................................................. 12 21 c. 2012 Revisions to Alleged Adopted 2011 Master Plan .................. 14 22 d. 2019 ODA Letters and Agenda ........................................................ 16 23 24 e. 2019 ODA Adoption or Affirmation of Master Plan ..................... 19 25 26 WILSONVILLE’S PETITION FOR REVIEW City Attorney’s Office / City of Wilsonville / 29799 SW Town Center Loop E. / Wilsonville OR 97070 / T: 503-570-1507 F: 503-682-1015/ Page ii 1 B. Second Assignment of Error: Respondents Failed to Make Findings 2 of Compatibility and Compliance Contemporaneous With Consideration 3 of the Master Plan .......................................................................................... 19 4 1. Statement of Preservation ................................................................ 19 5 2. Standard of Review ........................................................................... 19 6 3. Argument ........................................................................................... 19 7 C. Third Assignment of Error: Findings Did Not Consider Wilsonville 8 or Clackamas County Comprehensive Plans .............................................. 21 9 1. Statement of Preservation ................................................................ 21 2. Standard of Review ........................................................................... 21 10 3. Argument ........................................................................................... 21 11 D. Fourth Assignment of Error: Respondents’ Adopted Findings and 12 Master Plan Do Not Comply with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals .. 26 13 1. Statement of Preservation ................................................................ 26 14 2. Standard of Review ........................................................................... 26 15 3. Argument ........................................................................................... 26 16 a. Respondents Erred in Failing to Make Findings Regarding 17 Statewide Goals 2, 5, 6, 7, and 13 ............................................................ 26 18 i. Statewide Goal 2 – Land Use Planning ........................................ 27 19 ii. Statewide Goal 5 – Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic 20 Areas, and Open Spaces ........................................................................ 28 21 22 iii. Statewide Goal 6 – Air, Water, and Land Resource Quality . 28 23 iv. Statewide Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and 24 Hazards ................................................................................................... 29 25 v. Statewide Goal 13 – Energy Conservation .................................. 30 26 WILSONVILLE’S PETITION FOR REVIEW City Attorney’s Office / City of Wilsonville / 29799 SW Town Center Loop E. / Wilsonville OR 97070 / T: 503-570-1507 F: 503-682-1015/ Page iii 1 b. Respondents Failed to Make Adequate Findings Based on 2 Substantial Evidence for Statewide Goals 1, 3, 11, 12, and 14 ............. 30 3 i. Statewide Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement ...................................... 31 4 ii. Statewide Goal 3 – Agricultural Lands .................................... 33 5 iii. Statewide Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services ................. 35 6 7 iv. Statewide Goal 12 - Transportation .......................................... 36 8 v. Statewide Goal 14 - Urbanization ................................................ 38 9 IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 39 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WILSONVILLE’S PETITION FOR REVIEW City Attorney’s Office / City of Wilsonville / 29799 SW Town Center Loop E. / Wilsonville OR 97070 / T: 503-570-1507 F: 503-682-1015/ Page iv 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239 (2011) ....................... 28, 30 4 Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth v. Metro, 179 Or App. 12 (2002) ......... 31 5 Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Revenue, 356 Or 282 (2014) .................................... 23 6 County of Morrow v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 178 Or App 329 (2001) ........ 23 7 Heiller v. Josephine County, 23 Or LUBA 551 (1992) ...................................... 31 8 Horning v. Washington County, 51 Or LUBA 303 (2006) ................................ 18 9 Krueger v. Josephine County, 17 Or LUBA 418 (1989) ............................. 26, 27 10 Restore Oregon v. City of Portland, 301 Or App 769 (2020) ..................... 28, 30 11 Shadybrook Environmental Protection Association v. Washington County, 12 4 Or LUBA 236 (1981) .................................................................................... 27 13 South of Sunnyside Neighborhood League v. Board of Com’rs of Clackamas 14 County, 280 Or 3 (1977) .................................................................................. 31 15 West Side Rural Fire Protection District v. City of Hood River, 16 43 Or LUBA 612 (2002) .................................................................................. 20 17 Statutes 18 ORS 192.640(1) .................................................................................................. 12 19 ORS 197.015(10)(a)(B) ........................................................................................ 9 20 ORS 197.180 .................................................................................................. 6, 10 21 ORS 197.180(1) .................................................................................................... 6 22 ORS 197.825(1) .................................................................................................... 9 23 ORS 197.830(2)(b) ............................................................................................... 1 24 ORS 197.835(8) ............................................................................................. 9, 18 25 ORS 197.835(9)(b) .................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • (Asos) Implementation Plan

    (Asos) Implementation Plan

    AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM (ASOS) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN VAISALA CEILOMETER - CL31 November 14, 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service / Office of Operational Systems/Observing Systems Branch National Weather Service / Office of Science and Technology/Development Branch Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary............................................................................ iii 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................... 1 1.1 Background.......................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose................................................................................. 2 1.3 Scope.................................................................................... 2 1.4 Applicable Documents......................................................... 2 1.5 Points of Contact.................................................................. 4 2.0 Pre-Operational Implementation Activities ............................ 6 3.0 Operational Implementation Planning Activities ................... 6 3.1 Planning/Decision Activities ............................................... 7 3.2 Logistic Support Activities .................................................. 11 3.3 Configuration Management (CM) Activities....................... 12 3.4 Operational Support Activities ............................................ 12 4.0 Operational Implementation (OI) Activities .........................
  • INTRODUCTION Airport Master Plan Update Aurora State Airport

    INTRODUCTION Airport Master Plan Update Aurora State Airport

    Chapter One: INTRODUCTION Airport Master Plan Update Aurora State Airport This update to the 2000 Airport Master Plan was undertaken to assess the role of the Aurora State Airport (Airport), evaluate the Airport's capabilities, forecast future aeronautical activity for the next 20 years, and plan for the timely development of any new or expanded Airport facilities needed to accommodate future aviation activity. The owner and operator of the Airport, the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA), obtained and matched a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to fund this study. ODA has organized a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), representing Airport users and neighbors, to participate in the planning process. In addition to six PAC meetings, public involvement in the master plan update includes a website to disseminate information and gather comments and questions, and five open houses for the general public. The purpose of this first draft chapter of the Airport Master Plan Update (Plan) is threefold: • to summarize major issues that the Plan should address • to identify goals for the planning process and for the future development of the Airport • to determine the Airport’s current and future role within the system of airports GOALS Goals for the master plan update were a subject of the first PAC meeting held on July 22, 2010. The common themes of PAC members’ statements have been synthesized and are presented below. The goals are divided between two categories – goals for the planning process and goals for the master plan itself. Planning Process Goals The goals for the planning process should guide the conduct of the ODA, ODA’s consultants, and the PAC throughout the development of the master plan update.
  • Troutdale Airport Master Plan Shaping Our Future Planning Advisory Committee Final Report June 2016

    Troutdale Airport Master Plan Shaping Our Future Planning Advisory Committee Final Report June 2016

    TROUTDALE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN SHAPING OUR FUTURE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT JUNE 2016 May 11, 2016 Port of Portland Executive Director, Troutdale Airport: Shaping Our Future was a complete airport master plan process that went above and beyond. While the master plan followed many of the traditional steps characteristic of an airport master plan, it also explored a broader range of issues important to the Port, City and greater region. Before the process began, the Port of Portland recognized that Troutdale Airport was a valued community asset on an unsustainable path. At the same time, the Port identified a local community need for increased economic opportunities. This master plan process was exceptional in that it not only addressed the airport resources required to continue serving aviation needs, it also evaluated how Troutdale Airport could sustainably serve local community needs as a whole for the next 20 years. The Port of Portland invited a group of 23 stakeholders – representing diverse values of economic, environmental and social sustainability – to create a project advisory committee (PAC) charged with providing input and recommendations for the master plan process. From the spring of 2014 to the spring of 2016, I worked with these outstanding individuals and the Port to develop our recommendations on the Troutdale Airport Master Plan. As a PAC, we were given the opportunity to provide input on planning documents and engage in rigorous discussion about Troutdale Airport’s role in the future. Our recommendations were also informed by community input collected from stakeholder meetings and public involvement activities prior to key project milestones.
  • Aviation Board Meeting

    Aviation Board Meeting

    Aviation Board Meeting April 02, 2020 Call to Order & Introductions Approve Consent Agenda February 11, 2020 Board Meeting Minutes Public Comments Limited to 2 Minutes per Speaker OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION Directors Update April 2, 2020 (503)378-4880 3040 25TH STREET, SALEM, OR 97302 WWW.OREGON.GOV/AVIATION ORAVIATION ODA Office operations • Teleworking/On-site staff Office open, by appointment only Minimum of two staff in office majority of staff are teleworking no end date, planning for this to continue until end of April • New staff Andrea Abrahamson– Fiscal Analyst, started Monday the 30th Anthony Beach – State Airports Manager, starts April 13 Hiring two summer temporary helpers for landscaping • Mary B. Baby boy, born 3/16 on maternity leave until mid-June Impact of Fuel tax revenue reduction Expecting significant decrease in fuel tax revenues, amount and duration unknown. March fuel tax #’s available mid-May. April #’s available mid-June, and will be the litmus test for how low they will go. We are guessing about 50% drop in March, and a 90% drop in April. Beyond April is difficult to estimate, depends on when distancing measures are relaxed, and how soon airlines resume prior schedules. 86% of annual operating revenue comes from the fuel tax 5% of revenue from aircraft registration 3.5% of revenue from leases 5.5% from fuel flowage, tie-down, special use, inspections, etc. These funds pay for agency operation as well as the grants programs. Annual operating cost (excluding grants and PMP) about $2.5M. Federal assistance for airports From the $2T CARE Act passed by Congress last week 1) $50B to airlines, $10B to airports 2) Of the $10B, $7.4B goes to the commercial service airports, $2B for AIP eligible projects, $500M for waiver of local match on 2020 grants, $56M for Essential Air Service, and $100M for NPIAS GA airports.
  • OREGON AVIATION PLAN Economic Impact Statement

    OREGON AVIATION PLAN Economic Impact Statement

    OREGON AVIATION PLAN Economic Impact Statement 2014 for NPIAS Airports Photo courtesy of City of Redmond Municipal Airport OREGON AVIATION PLAN Economic Impact Statement 2014 for NPIAS Airports The 2014 Oregon Aviation Plan Economic Impact Other modes of transportation cannot compete Study (2014 OAP EIS) is presented by the Oregon with aviation’s ability to move people and products Department of Aviation (ODA) and addresses the to where they are most needed safely, quickly and OVERVIEW economic contribution of aviation by Federal Avia- efficiently. Airports are a key component of the tion Administration (FAA) National Plan of Integrat- state’s infrastructure, allowing Oregon businesses ed Airport Systems (NPIAS) airports to the Oregon to do business at a global scale, creating econom- state economy, updating the most recent study, ic growth and opportunity that reaches far outside which was completed in 2007. the airport property. Airports are a key asset to Oregon commerce, Economic impacts of airports include on-airport providing transportation, employment and real economic activities, as well as spending off-airport estate for commercial and industrial develop- by visiting air travelers and those employed by ment, in addition to being infrastructure essential on-airport businesses. This executive summary to emergency response, medical evacuation, fire presents totals for the state and the five state protection and freight transport. NPIAS airports regions as defined by the Oregon Department of contribute more than $8.7 billion to the Oregon Transportation (ODOT). The economic impact of economy annually and provide Oregon businesses individual airport studies and the methodology and residents with just in time shipments of the used to complete the analysis are presented in the goods that keeping Oregon’s businesses moving.
  • Final Documents/Your Two Cents—August 2015

    Final Documents/Your Two Cents—August 2015

    Final Documents/Your Two Cents—August 2015 This list includes Federal Register (FR) publications such as rules, Advisory Circulars (ACs), policy statements and related material of interest to ARSA members. The date shown is the date of FR publication or other official release. For proposals opened for public comment, see documents highlighted in red in this issue. Those documents represent your chance to provide input on rules and policies that will affect you. Agencies must provide the public notice and an opportunity for comment before their rules or policies change. Your input matters. Comments should be received before the indicated due date; however, agencies often consider comments they receive before drafting of the final document begins. Hyperlinks provided in blue text take you to the full document. If this link is broken, go to http://www.regulation.gov. In the keyword or ID field, type “FAA” followed by the docket number. August 3, 2015 Articles FAA Proposes Civil Penalties Against Two Companies for Alleged Hazardous Materials Violations The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes civil penalties of $69,000 and $63,000 against two companies for allegedly violating Hazardous Materials Regulations. Rules AD: Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes - radome assembly Published 08/03/2015 Docket #: FAA-2015-18535 Effective date 09/08/2015 We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the radome assembly, which could result in the radome (or pieces) separating from the airplane and striking the tail, consequently reducing the controllability of the airplane. AD: Airbus Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321 series airplanes - waste water service panel Published 08/03/2015 Docket #: FAA- 2015-18564 Effective date 09/08/2015 This AD requires modification of the potable water service panel and waste water service panel, including doing applicable related investigative and corrective actions.
  • Future Role of Hillsboro Airport Chapter Two Port of Portland

    Future Role of Hillsboro Airport Chapter Two Port of Portland

    PORT OF PORTLAND Chapter Two FUTURE ROLE OF HILLSBORO AIRPORT CHAPTER TWO PORT OF PORTLAND FUTUREFUTURE ROLEROLE OFOF HILLSBOROHILLSBORO AIRPORTAIRPORT The purpose of this chapter of the Airport Master Plan is to analyze the feasibility of alternative roles for Hillsboro Airport within the context of the Portland metropolitan system of airports and State of Oregon system of airports. This analysis provides a foundation for the Port of Portland to determine, specifically and ideally, what Hillsboro Airport's role should be through 2025. This involves considering the probability and viability of supporting scheduled commercial air service and/or air cargo activity at Hillsboro Airport. HILLSBORO AIRPORT'S EXISTING ROLE The role for Hillsboro Airport is defined within both state and federal aviation plans. At the national level, Hillsboro Airport is defined as a reliever airport in the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Reliever airports are specially designated general aviation airports intended to reduce congestion at large commercial service airports. This reliever role is usually accomplished, not by accommodating commercial flights, but by providing an attractive option for the myriad of non-commercial, general aviation aircraft operations that urban areas generate. Hillsboro Airport is classified as a reliever for Portland International Airport (PDX). In this role, Hillsboro Airport is intended to preserve capacity at PDX by offering an alternative operating area for general
  • Aurora State Airport Constrained Operations Runway Justification Study

    Aurora State Airport Constrained Operations Runway Justification Study

    AURORA STATE AIRPORT – CONSTRAINED OPERATIONS RUNWAY JUSTIFICATION STUDY AURORA STATE AIRPORT CONSTRAINED OPERATIONS RUNWAY JUSTIFICATION STUDY DRAFT AURORA STATE AIRPORT – CONSTRAINED OPERATIONS RUNWAY JUSTIFICATION STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT AURORA STATE AIRPORT – CONSTRAINED OPERATIONS RUNWAY JUSTIFICATION STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to review the current runway length requirements and activity at the Aurora State Airport compared to the assumptions made in the approved 2012 Airport Master Plan to consider if the eligibility threshold for a runway extension has been met. An analysis of aviation activity at the Airport has identified 349 based aircraft. 10.8% of the aircraft based at the Airport are jet aircraft. The Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) began collecting data in October 2015 and has identified 48,459 Airport operations in 2016 and 58,597 Airport operations in 2017. The confirmed TAF numbers are 44,292 and 54,999 respectively. FAA Traffic Flow Management Systems Counts (TFMSC) operations data presented by Aircraft Design Group identified at least 860 annual operations by C and D aircraft on average from 2009 to 2018. Additional analysis of the TFMSC data indicates there have been 599 average annual operations by aircraft requiring 5,901 feet or more of runway length. However, the majority of these operations (70%) are conducted by aircraft that require 6,000 feet or more of runway during given conditions. On average there are 415 annual operations per year by aircraft that require 6,000 feet or more of runway. A constrained operations Airport user survey was distributed as part of this study. The survey identified 645 constrained annual operations from a variety of aircraft and aircraft operators.
  • 1 Before the Land Use Board of Appeals 2 of the State Of

    1 Before the Land Use Board of Appeals 2 of the State Of

    1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 4 JOSEPH SCHAEFER, CITY OF AURORA, 5 CITY OF WILSONVILLE, 6 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON and 7 FRIENDS OF FRENCH PRAIRIE, 8 Petitioners, 9 10 and 11 12 CLACKAMAS COUNTY, 13 Intervenor-Petitioner, 14 15 vs. 16 17 OREGON AVIATION BOARD and 18 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, 19 Respondents, 20 21 and 22 23 AURORA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT 24 ASSOCIATION, BRUCE BENNETT, 25 WILSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 26 TED MILLAR, TLM HOLDINGS, LLC, 27 ANTHONY ALAN HELBLING and 28 WILSONVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 29 Intervenors-Respondents. 30 31 LUBA Nos. 2019-123/127/129/130 32 33 FINAL OPINION 34 AND ORDER 35 3 6 Appeal from Oregon Aviation Board and Oregon Department of Aviation. 37 Page 1 1 Andrew Mulkey, Portland, filed a petition for review and a reply brief and 2 argued on behalf of petitioners 1000 Friends of Oregon and Friends of French 3 Prairie. 4 5 Joseph Schaefer, Aurora, and Sara Kendrick, Silverdale, WA, filed a joint 6 petition for review and reply briefs. Joseph Schaefer argued on behalf of himself. 7 Sara Kendrick argued on behalf of petitioner City of Aurora. 8 9 Barbara A. Jacobson, City Attorney, Wilsonville, and StephenL. Madkour 10 and Nathan K. Boderman, Clackamas County Counsels, Oregon City, filed a joint 11 petition for review and a reply brief. Barbara A. Jacobson argued on behalf of 12 petitioner City of Wilsonville. Nathan K. Boderman argued on behalf of 13 intervenor-petitioner Clackamas County. 14 15 Lucinda Jackson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed a 16 response brief and argued on behalf of respondents.
  • Fred Wahl Marine Construction

    Fred Wahl Marine Construction

    ConnectOregon TRANSIT AVIATION MARINE RAIL BIKE/PED MULT MODES Introduction Contents ConnectOregon, created by the Oregon Legislature in Aurora State Airport ............................3 2005, uses Oregon Lottery-backed bond dollars to leverage funding of non-highway projects throughout City of Prineville Railway ........................5 the state. Since its inception, ConnectOregon has put $427 Coos Bay Rail Link .............................7 million for rail, aviation, marine, public transit, bicycle/ pedestrian and multimodal projects. Here is a selection Fred Wahl Marine Construction ...................9 Number of Projects of successful projects from throughout the program’s history. More information and engaging videos are Pioneer Parkway Corridor ....................... 11 located at www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/Pages/ Port of Morrow ............................... 13 ConnectOregon-Stories.aspx. 34 76 36 72 12 4 Teevin Bros. Land & Timber ..................... 15 Sandy Transit Facility ........................... 17 ConnectOregon Funding (in Millions) Tualatin River Greenway Trail Project ............. 19 Project Distribution by Mode .................... 20 $49.7 $101.7 $69.4 $173.1 $13.9 $15.5 Includes ConnectOregon Rural Airports projects. Chart does not include administrative costs. ConnectOregon Aurora State Airport uilt by the United States Army Air Forces in 1943 to support one of the biggest avionics dealers in the country, and Life Flight air Bthe Portland Army Air Base during World War II, the Auro- ambulance. ra State Airport has grown to become the third busiest airport in An additional 274 jobs off the airport property are directly Oregon. attributed to off-airport visitor spending, totaling nearly 1,500 jobs. The airport, operated by the Oregon Department of Aviation, Justin Dillingham is the Chief Customer Officer for Life is located northwest of Aurora in Marion County.
  • Newport Municipal Airport Operations Report From

    Newport Municipal Airport Operations Report From

    Newport Municipal Airport Operations Report 12/31/2020 from: DECEMBER 1 – DECEMBER 31, 2020 2020 has been quit the year Newport Municipal Airport. COVID-19 brought challenges resulting in FBO closures, appointment only, to limiting the amount of people based on social distasting requirements, and staff furloughs. But 2020 was not as bad as projected for the calendar year numbers. 2020 calendar year for Newport Municipal Airport. Logged 3,293 landings, and 3,306 take offs, totaling 6,599 logged aircraft operations; 106 Jet aircraft, only 5 short form 2019. Pilots purchased 15,720 gallons of AV-Gas, 32,953 gallons of Jet-A, totaling 48,673 gallons of fuel sold. Averaging out to 15 gallons per landing. The FBO rented 420 cars, which is 63% of 2019’s total 663. 213 courtesy cars were borrowed which is 48% of 2019’s total 444. 2020 highlights for the Airport: Letter from Lincoln County selecting Newport Municipal Airport for new animal shelter location. Gave presentation for Newport Chamber on the airport at the Best Western. Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Airport. Awarded $3.1 million dollar FAA AIP project for storm pipe rehabilitation and Lake Creek Culvert fish passage mitigation project. This project is fully funded by the FAA. Received $69,000 from CARES Act to help cover operations cost for airport. Memorandum of Agreement with Life Flight to sump Jet-A truck when FBO is closed for holidays or times staffing may not be available. Applied for State of Oregon Department of Aviation COAR grant to help with matching funds for phase II Environmental Assessment of Obstruction Removal Project.
  • I. Ii. Iii. Iv. V. Vi. Vii

    I. Ii. Iii. Iv. V. Vi. Vii

    PORT OF COLUMBIA COUNTY 100 E STREET, COLUMBIA CITY, OR APRIL 10, 2019 8:30 A.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER (President, Chris Iverson) A. Flag Salute B. Roll Call II. CONSENT AGENDA (The Board has agreed to implement a Consent Agenda. Implementation of the Consent Agenda means that all items marked with an asterisk (*) are adopted by a single motion, unless a Member of the Board requests that such item be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon separately. Generally, Consent Agenda items are routine in nature and enable the Board to focus on other matters on the Agenda.) A.* Approval of Minutes; March 20, 2019 B.* Financial Reports/Commissioners Reimbursement III. COMMENTS FROM VISITORS (Limited to 2 min. per person unless prior authority is obtained) IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. None V. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution 2019-17 MH A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MOORAGE FEES AT THE SCAPPOOSE BAY MARINE PARK, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 201-27 B. Resolution 2019-18 MH A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NEW LAUNCH AND DAILY USE PARKING FEES AT THE SCAPPOOSE BAY MARINE PARK, REPEALING RESOLUTION 2017-61 C. Resolution 2019-19 MH A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING HANGAR AND TIE-DOWN FEES AT THE SCAPPOOSE INDUSTRIAL AIRPARK, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2017-37 D. Resolution 2019-20 CA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SELECTION OF MIKE GEORGE PAVING CO. FOR WORK AT THE MULTNOMAH INDUSTRIAL PARK E. Resolution 2019-21 CA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AWARD FOR A PROJECT TO EXTEND WATER AND SEWER LINES AT THE SCAPPOOSE INDUSTRIAL AIRPARK F. Resolution 2019-22 CA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR LOWER COLUMBIA ENGINEERING FOR ADDITIONAL PHASE III DESIGN AND ENGINEERING WORK FOR A NEW AIRPARK HANGAR BUILDING G.