RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND AIRPORT The Commission conducted surveys of all municipalities in New Jersey in which an airport is located and all municipalities in New Jersey that neighbor a municipality where an airport is located. In addition, it conducted a survey of all general aviation airport owners or operators in New Jersey. The Commission found that the leading factors influencing relationships between municipalities and general aviation airports are the perceptions of the municipality by the airport and vice versa. The leading identifiable cause of friction between airports and their host communities seems to be a lack of communication between the two entities. The Commission finds that there exists a great need for education in the community, by way of addressing both the benefits of the airport and some technical information that allays fears that a general aviation airport could serve airline-type aircraft. The airport owners and operators have not been able to convey either of these points. The leading identifiable cause of good relations between airports and their host and neighboring communities appeared to be the existence of an effective means of communication between them. THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOST MUNICIPALITIES The Commission made extensive efforts to secure testimony from every municipality in the State that hosts an airport, especially where municipalities have an unusually good or unusually poor relationship with their airport. The Commission invited all municipalities in the State to give testimony, hearing testimony from municipalities that are home to privately owned airports, municipalities that are home to publicly owned airports and municipalities that are an airport's neighboring communities. The Commission developed and conducted separate surveys of municipalities that host airports, municipalities that neighbor airports and the owners of airports. Specifically, testimony was given regarding the often-difficult issue of making improvements necessary to keep up with the operational requirements of modern business aircraft. These aircraft, of vital importance to corporations located in the State, require longer runways and larger hangars than the business aircraft of the 1950s, as discussed previously. The Commission's study (see "Summary of Host Community Responses to Questionnaire," Appendix D) revealed several significant factors that contribute to strained airport/host municipality relationships. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION Effective communication between the airport owner and the community is of paramount concern to the communities who responded to the survey. Approximately 73 percent of communities who responded felt that the airport owners/operators have done little in the way of communicating to the host community the benefits - economic and aesthetic - that an airport can provide. Forty percent of those respondents cited better communications as the key to improved relations. The issue seemed to overwhelm other concerns, including concern over airport noise. Approximately half of all responding host communities either reported good or neutral relations with their airports, while 25 percent reported "mixed" relations. Only 25 percent of the respondents reported "bad" or strained relationships. Of those responding to the survey, the predominant "bad" factor cited was a lack of communication, or a sense of having little information about activities at the airport. Some respondents were unequivocal, neither bad nor good: Lumberton Township, a municipality where two airports are located, stated that it considers the Flying W "a pain in the neck," where allegedly conflicting air traffic patterns pose "a safety hazard."136 The Township would like to see the airport closed. However, Lumberton Township's attitude toward its second airport, South Jersey Regional, is somewhat different. While the Township describes its relationship with the airport as "tumultuous," when asked if the airport is a good neighbor, it acknowledged "I believe that the operators of the airport are making an effort to be a part of the future of Lumberton." Similarly, Oldmans Township explained why it felt the airport was a "bad" neighbor: "No communication, concern or interest in the community," and that the airport could become a better neighbor if it became "interested in the community and make it an asset instead of a problem." However, when asked if the airport should be encouraged to grow, the Township answered, "Yes; carefully and cautiously." The Mayor, who returned the questionnaire, wrote: "The Airport has a history for failure to pay its taxes to the municipality. The State has bailed it out twice, $115,000 - plus in back taxes and interest charges." Conversely, the Borough of Woodbine reported good relations with Woodbine Municipal Airport, a publicly owned, public use airport. "Through constant communication with Borough Council, the airport maintains a good rapport with the community. Additionally, the airport sponsors a community spirit day, 'Festival of Friends,' involving the whole town." The Borough wanted to see the airport grow. "The airport has made every effort to operate in a safe and efficient manner, while providing the community with a vital link to air transportation. The airport is planned to be developed in a way that will be compatible with adjacent properties, provide jobs and stimulate the economy of the Borough of Woodbine and other surrounding municipalities." Most communities expressed a desire to improve relations with the airports they host, but have no clear idea of how to do so. Asked whether the communities feel the airport has communicated the benefit it offers to the community, almost 75 percent of respondents lamented a failure of such communication. AIRCRAFT NOISE Aircraft noise, though certainly a factor in community relations, is low on both the lists of municipal complaints and suggested improvements. Overall, less than half of the responding communities reported receiving airplane overfly noise complaints. Approximately one-third receive helicopter noise complaints and about one-quarter receive noise complaints about night operations of aircraft. Most significantly, when asked what the airport could do to become a better neighbor, only seven percent responded that it should reduce noise. MUNICIPALITIES AS AIRPORT BUYERS Alarmingly, 50 percent of respondents answered that they would not purchase an airport that the owner was about to sell (even assuming federal and State financial assistance). 42 percent were uncertain about this. Only eight percent of respondents indicated that they, themselves, would continue the operation of their airport. Clearly, these figures indicate that half of respondents do not recognize (or do not care about) the benefits general aviation airports bring to their communities. The other half do, but most of them prefer that the private owner continue to carry the responsibility of operating the airport. In addition to its survey the Commission received testimony from municipal officials which provided, verbatim, some worthwhile insights to the attitudes and concerns of the municipalities. ECONOMIC BENEFITS As a result of the testimony this Commission has heard from municipalities, and the responses to the municipal questionnaire, this Commission has concluded that almost every municipality significantly underestimates the economic value of airports. Even the municipalities that view their airports as an economic asset and a key to attracting business underestimate the economic impact of the airport on their community. On March 26, 1996, the Commission received the economic impact study conducted by the Airport Technology and Planning Group, Inc. in accordance with another legislative mandate. During hearings held after that date, the Commission asked municipalities to estimate the economic impact of their local airport. Of course, allowances must be made for the fact that an airport benefits an entire area, not just the host municipality. Still, these municipalities' estimates were remarkably low. Alexandria Township views Alexandria Airport as serving a vital transportation role for business executives and is favorably disposed toward an airport expansion. Even so, the Deputy Mayor estimated the economic contribution of Alexandria Airport to the community as merely the six persons employed at the airport. According to the Economic Impact Study, the economic impact of that airport on its community is $3.3 million.137 If the true economic impact of airports is undervalued in communities that support their airport and want to see it expand, airports are even more undervalued in communities that do not want their airport to grow. In Montgomery Township, the Administrator acknowledged that the Township viewed the economic impact of Princeton Airport as negligible, citing the small number of employees and related operations.138 The total economic impact of Princeton Airport on the area of Montgomery Township is estimated at $8.6 million.139 The Mayor of Fairfield Township could only offer a vague assessment of the economic importance of Essex County Airport. The Mayor recognized that Fairfield is made up of about two-thirds of an industrial base. As a result, a good number of small and probably medium-sized corporations in the area utilize the airport for business and operations-related travel.140 She had no idea that the actual economic impact of Essex County Airport in the area of Fairfield Township is $64 million.141 The Readington Township Administrator, when asked of Solberg Airport's economic value to the community, responded: "It is a relatively small operation. It is not a large employer. The largest thing that happens here is the balloon festival."142 His further comments about the balloon festival were that "The only revenue coming in is when off-duty police officers are hired..." and "Our roads are clogged. No one is coming and buying on the way in at local stores."143 According to the Longwood Study, the balloon festival alone gives $100,000 each year to charities and service groups.144 The whole economic impact of the Solberg Airport on the area of Readington Township is $10 million.145 Hillsborough Township and Kupper Airport The Hillsborough Township Mayor and Hillsborough Township Engineer told the Commission about the Township's consideration of purchasing Kupper Airport, a financially troubled privately owned, public use airport. [N.B. Kupper Airport was subsequently purchased by a private concern and it remains a privately owned, public use facility known as Central Jersey Regional Airport].146 The Mayor testified: My perspective on airports comes not only from having Kupper Airport within Hillsborough's boundaries, but from our considerable study of Kupper's operations for potential acquisition by our town . . . Hillsborough's detailed feasibility study for our potential acquisition of Kupper Airport has provided some unique insight in the problems of New Jersey's smaller airports. Insufficient revenues over the past several decades have taken their toll on these airports. Aging facilities and lacking services have sent these airports into a downward spiral. FAA grant programs have only recently become available to some of these airports, which have been classified as "reliever" airports, but this may well be too little, too late. What has become glaringly apparent is the fact that small airports throughout New Jersey have a difficult time staying profitable, and yet they provide invaluable and irreplaceable services. What should also be apparent is that the FAA grant program has proven inadequate to sustain general aviation airports. I cannot say that Hillsborough's perspective is typical of municipalities throughout New Jersey. Hillsborough is more fortunate than most host municipalities in that Kupper Airport is predominately surrounded by vacant and/or industrial zoned lands.147 We have had an opportunity that few other municipalities have shared, that is, to have participated in an in-depth study of how a general aviation airport functions, or doesn't function, as a business. The State, as a whole, can benefit from this study if this Commission considers as a part of any comprehensive aviation policy that it recommends goals and objectives which address the following: 1) Recognizing the inadequacies of current grant funding programs and develop an expanded program of State financial support. 2) Recognizing that airports, in and of themselves, need to be treated and must be allowed to function as businesses which have special needs and which provide jobs for New Jersey families. This translates to a new State policy which supports the development and enhancement of aviation-related improvements such as hangars, tank farms and access roads with adequate grant funding. 3) Recognize that more than just a quick fix is required if public and private general aviation airports are to survive long into the future as indispensable components of New Jersey's aviation infrastructure. 4) Recognize the deteriorated state of many private aviation facilities and the need to make them safer, more capable and better able to compete on a national scale. 5) Recognize the need to provide encouragement and incentives for local government and interested citizens to participate in aviation infrastructure preservation. The Hillsborough Township Engineer told the Commission that: Kupper Airport operation today is marginally profitable, but the study has identified numerous opportunities to enhance the revenue potential significantly. Unfortunately, these items include: "T" hanger renovation and construction, fuel farm rehabilitation, and access to roads which would not currently qualify for grant funding. On the negative side: Kupper infrastructure was essentially completed by 1970, and even at that time much of the facilities were aging and/or relocated. In order for Kupper Airport to evolve into a viable business operation, it is anticipated that $11,600,000 of improvements will be needed over the next 16 years, with approximately $4.3 million required in the first three years. Within the current funding program, the private or municipal share of these costs cannot be sustained by the projected revenue increases. The Township Engineer suggested to the Commission two issues for its consideration: The first issue is to recommend a new policy which will generally provide private airports a greater range of funding, recognizing not only their importance as New Jersey's aviation infrastructure supporting business, but as businesses themselves, employers with special needs, businesses which need to be better integrated into the local fabric without compromising national standards. This will hopefully prevent other airports from declining to the poor state of Kupper and enable them to better serve New Jersey's economy. The second issue is to recognize the more unique circumstances of municipally owned airports, and to develop a separate set of criteria which will provide greater economic incentives for host communities. For airports such as Kupper, this may be the only hope of survival. For others, it may be the key element to turn the tide of local hostility towards airports. Lakewood Township and Lakewood Airport Mr. George Buckwald, of the Lakewood Industrial Commission, the public entity which owns Lakewood Airport, described how there was a great deal of negative press about the Township's purchase of the airport, in spite of all the studies indicating the economic and business advantages of such an arrangement. Unusually enough, the negative press in Lakewood Township questioned the potential economic impact of an airport, and did not present the more emotionally charged heavy jet and noise speculation that other communities have experienced.148 This testimony simply echoed a suggestion implicit in much of the testimony heard by the Commission: there is a great need for statewide education on the advantages of a combined airport/industrial park. Had such a program been in effect, the Lakewood community could have averted substantial anguish. Oldmans Township and Oldmans Airport The Engineer for Oldmans Township, reported that the Township is trying to encourage the development of the privately owned Oldmans Airport. Though it has been in financial difficulty and its facilities have decayed, the Township believes the airport could be expanded and upgraded to serve as an integral transportation resource for the nearby Pureland Industrial Park. The Township has been coordinating with the New Jersey Division of Aeronautics on funding for such improvements.149 Hammonton Township and Hammonton Airport Hammonton Township is likewise attempting to lengthen the runway at its municipally owned airport. According to a Hammonton council member, it is anticipated that the expansion, by allowing larger aircraft to use the field, will attract business and industry to the area.150 West Milford Township and Greenwood Lake Airport The Township Manager for West Milford Township reported that the Township is studying the purchase of the Greenwood Lake Airport. Though West Milford Township does not yet have the infrastructure of sewers and water systems necessary to serve an industrial park, the airport is a vital link in their plan to promote tourism. The airport could serve as a gateway for tourists to vacation or come for a day of hiking or fishing in this sparsely populated township.151 Alexandria Township and Sky Manor and Alexandria Airports The Deputy Mayor of Alexandria Township likewise does not envision the Township's two airports, Sky Manor and Alexandria, as hubs of industry. While the Township is zoned mostly residential, the Township views the airports as serving a transportation need for the corporate executives who live in the community. He stated that just as importantly, they assist in preserving "open space," and mitigating residential development. He noted that the expense of schools and other requisite infrastructure, makes each new house a net loss for the community. As such, the Township would like the open land surrounding the airports to be preserved for future airport expansion. In addition, the Township testified that Alexandria Airport provides flight instruction and a recreational facility for its balloon festival. The Township has attempted to make these aviation facilities integral parts of the community. During the balloon festival, homes neighboring the airport often host lawn parties to watch the balloons ascend. There have been only minor noise issues with the airports, and the open lines of communication have settled those issues quickly and amicably.152 The common thread of the municipalities that are favorably disposed toward their airports seems to be an understanding of the economic value of the facilities. The municipalities perceive the value of the airports in attracting businesses and the symbiotic relationship between airports and industrial parks, or they appreciate the transportation and open space which airports provide. BAD RELATIONS: TWO CASE STUDIES Montgomery Township and Princeton Airport The history of Montgomery Township and Princeton Airport provides a case study of poor relationships between an airport and the community. What began as a cordial relationship between the two entities soon became hostile and included costly litigation. Today, reconciliation has occurred. The Commission was fortunate to have three representatives of Montgomery Township who were familiar with the relationship with Princeton Airport; the Mayor, the Township Attorney and the Township Administrator. All three provided valuable insight into this dispute. Though the feeling has not always been unanimous among the people of the Township, the Mayor stated that Montgomery has, and does, regard the Princeton Airport as an asset to the community. According to the Mayor, a major concern of the residents of the Township is that the character of the Princeton Airport might change. These concerns involve the fear of an increased number of larger, noisier aircraft. When the airport was for sale in the mid-1980s, the owners had difficulty finding a buyer. The Township, though it preferred the airport remain under private ownership, reviewed what grants would be available for a public purchase. The Township was pleased when private buyers, the Nierenbergs, were eventually found.153 Problems arose, however, when the new owners promoted their services of flight instruction, aircraft fueling, etc. This both increased airport traffic and invited small jets to use the airport. A prior owner had agreed to prohibit jet traffic as a condition on a variance granted years earlier (in 1964) to extend the runway. However, according to FAA regulations, a public use airport that has been improved with federal funds cannot discriminate against any type of aircraft. So the Nierenbergs, acting in 1987, did not attempt to either prohibit or discourage jets.154 While the current Montgomery Council recognizes that jets cannot be prohibited, many residents continue their opposition to jet traffic on the belief that allowing jets to fly into the airport may ultimately lead to a regular jet presence in the area. Whether it is the issue of noise or simply the presence of jet aircraft at Princeton Airport, the Mayor expressed the belief that the residents may never accept the existence of jets easily.155 The testimony of the Mayor, together with the Township Attorney and Township Administrator,156 served to illustrate to the Commission four of the factors that are typical of bad airport-community relations: (1) a general ignorance in a community of the actual economic benefits that are derived from an airport; (2) a general fear in a community of jet aircraft; (3) the use of the municipal safety regulations designed, in part, to discourage aircraft (in this case, helicopters traffic) at the airport; and (4) insensitivity and inflexibility by FBO operators to neighborhood noise concerns. Montgomery Township is host to Princeton Airport. On the first factor relating to economic benefit, when the Commission asked during testimony, Q: "Does Princeton Airport make a substantial economic contribution to Montgomery Township or the area of Princeton Airport?" A: "Just in the property taxes they pay . . . I think their property taxes are less than $40,000 and probably more than $30,000." Q: "They make no contribution in excess of something in the nature of $40,000? You do not perceive that the business that is conducted there is making a contribution to the community?" A: "I don't think it is affected at all. I think it is more a factor for Princeton Township and Princeton Borough, maybe, which feel it that way, but I do not believe that we at the municipal level feel that way."157 The Township Administrator later added: "The [airport] operation isn't that large in terms of number of employees, and things of that sort that I think you would find it has a really significant economic impact in terms of the business it brings to the town or the people it employs. Businessmen who are flying in and out of there, of course, tend to go right to where they are having their meetings . . . Some of them probably stop-we have a number of restaurants in town-depending on what their destination is, whether it be Princeton to the south, Hillsborough to the north, Franklin to the east. Sure they are probably using some services somewhere. It's a fair question, but I don't think we regard it as significant that way. Maybe we should look into it more."158 Later in the questioning, the Commission, citing the study prepared by Airport and Technology Planning Group, Inc., informed the Montgomery Township officials that, according to the study, "the total economic impact of Princeton Airport would be $8,650,000.00 in the Princeton/Montgomery Township area."159 The Mayor ultimately conceded, "If the figures are correct, you are certainly correct. We underestimated the economic value."160 Discussing the second factor, the fear in the general community of jet aircraft, the Montgomery Town Administrator described some misperceptions: "I don't think most people have the slightest idea what a reliever airport is. I think most think a reliever airport is where the big jets come when the skies are too crowded over Newark. Of course, that is not what a reliever airport is."161 The Mayor testified, "I think there is a perceived concern of the residents that-whether it is noise or not-if jets are allowed on a regular basis, or actually based there, that would just mean that there would be more and more coming all the time. There is a big fear of jets, a big fear of what is going to happen in the future-whether they will be able to get larger and land on a smaller place. So I am not sure that the residents, per se, are ever going to accept jets easily."162 Under questioning from the Commissioners, the representatives of Montgomery Township acknowledged that modern jets have become far quieter, that only the smaller end of the jet spectrum could use a runway as short as Princeton's 3100 feet, and that the weight of airline type aircraft could not be supported by the runway.163 In spite of these facts, the "real fear"164 of airline transport and jet aircraft of residents remains. Montgomery Township officials suggested that the State could certainly play a role in educating the public in this area.165 However, in respect to educating the community on the differences between types of jet aircraft and the new noise abatement technology developing for new jet engines, the Township Administrator observed: ". . . a jet is a jet is a jet. That is the way I think it is seen by the public. . . Not all jets are new. Not all jets have these improved engines, and some of them still make noise. Plus, if you allow jets into the Airport . . . According to public perception, you are going to have bigger ones and bigge r ones."166 Though the fear of jets may be the overriding concern of Montgomery Township residents, it was not directly one of the issues in litigation between the Township and the Airport. This can be explained by the fact that flight operations, including the prohibition of jets or other category of air traffic, is regulated by the FAA and preempted at the State level. This fear, however, certainly can be seen as a major backdrop to the legal proceedings. From the testimony of the Township Attorney, the first legal volley was a suit by the airport in September 1989, to force Montgomery Township to adopt zoning consistent with the New Jersey's Airport Safety Act. The Township believed that such ordinances were not required to be adopted until May 15, 1990. The Township did in fact meet that deadline.167 The Airport subsequently sued the Township over ordinances that included prohibitions on jet operations, on helicopter training, and restrictions on helicopter refueling. Additional issues addressed land use considerations such as setbacks and site plan requirements. The third factor, a municipal safety regulation designed, in part, to discourage certain aircraft operations at Princeton Airport. In this case, it was a ban on "hot refueling" of helicopters [the practice of refueling a helicopter without shutting down its engines, thus conserving the "cycle" life of an engine]. The Mayor described the intent behind the Township's ban: "The town was concerned, and the fire company, that they would have a catastrophe. There was also the emotional issue as to what this would bring. In other words, if it was a stopover - if it was made a regular stopover, we would be getting the type of traffic that we didn't want. That was the feeling of the residents. The fire company had its own problem on how to handle it and what would be required to handle some sort of fire or explosion. So it was two issues."168 The aviation issues in these proceedings essentially became moot when the NJDOT, in 1993, passed new licensing regulations. Accordingly, the court found that the Township's regulations were preempted from addressing jet operations, helicopter training and helicopter refueling.169 The Township Attorney opined that the 1993 State regulations "were enacted, at least in part, as a result of the concerns that had arisen from [problems inherent in ] the Princeton Airport-Montgomery Township relationship and, in many ways, were very responsive to those problems. . ."170 She added "I think the state's regulations, if they are given a chance to be fully implemented, will go a long way in helping to prevent these kinds of issues from happening again, or recurring in other municipalities."171 The fourth factor of bad relations was, in this case, the insensitivity of FBO operators to neighborhood noise concerns. The Mayor testified: ". . . the prior owner of the helicopter school was rather inflexible, I think it is safe to say. The new owner of the helicopter school has been very sensitive to the community, such that he does most of his hovering operations right on the property and he limits, as much as he can, the pattern flying, which is a part of his curriculum. He has to do pattern flying, but he keeps it to a minimum and he takes great care, as much great care as he can, to avoid congested areas. Our complaints have fallen off to next to nothing."172 Montgomery Township discussed the establishment of an Airport Advisory Committee. The committee will have seven members: three appointed by the Township, three by the airport, and the seventh member jointly selected. The Mayor testified as to the Township's willingness to open a constructive dialog with Princeton Airport, notwithstanding a long history of costly litigation and community complaints. The Mayor explained: "During the last year and one-half, the Airport and the Township officials have been engaged in negotiations in an attempt to resolve our shared problems and our differences. The discussions have been notable for their candor and good faith. We are close to reaching agreement which will address issues such as safety, pilot education and discipline, noise mitigation, jet aircraft, helicopter training and flight patterns, physical characteristics of the Airport, and perhaps, most importantly, communications and dispute resolution."173 Montgomery Township also addressed the zoning change to the south of the airport under the downwind leg of the traffic pattern. When the airport representative had appeared before this Commission, she complained that the zoning was changed from research/engineering to residential in order to harass the airport with more noise complaints. The Mayor explained that the zoning was changed because the Township did not want the traffic impact of additional office parks on Route 206.174 Furthermore, as part of the planning board process for the development of those 300-320 new homes, they put out notices disclosing the airport and its potential for noise. This was done in order that the notices will carry through the chain of title so anybody buying in that area will be aware of the airport activities.175 This action by the Township predated the notification requirements in the Airport Safety Act, and in fact is for an area that is outside of the airport safety zone.176 The Township reported that these notices have been extremely effective in precluding noise complaints, and that the new housing area "has not been the area from which the township has received noise complaints."177 The Mayor even suggested that perhaps the State Airport Safety Act should be amended so that there is a circular notification zone around an airport.178 The Township Attorney commented " . . . where there was a rezoning and there are new residences, that has not been the area from which the township has received noise complaints. Part of that, I think, is, in large part, due to the fact that when those people were buying their homes, the Township, through the planning board process and in conjunction with the DOT, made sure that there were big, bold notices about the Airport, the presence of the Airport, saying that airports do make noise. The residents bought there knowing that, even with the big, bold-face type. That has not been the source of the complaints. . . We set it up so that those notices will carry through the chain of title, so that anybody buying in that area will be aware."179 The prolonged, tormented history begetting this reconciliation between Montgomery Township and Princeton Airport is an unnecessary, unfortunate and wasteful one. Yet it is one destined to be repeated time and again throughout the State. It would not have occurred if the laws clearly setting forth the policy of the State respecting airport development had been in place. More than once, attorneys for townships requested such laws. One commented to the effect that if there were not so much confusion, there would be no problems. He indicated that it was not the potential airport improvements that were tormenting the Township, it was his confusion about the law. If the State's law mandated it, then everyone would learn to accept the airport improvements. Readington Township and the Solberg Airport Perhaps the worst relationship this Commission found was between Solberg Airport, a privately owned public use airport and Readington Township, its host municipality. The testimony of the Readington Township Mayor180 and of the Readington Township Administrator and Chief Financial Officer,181 each of whom appeared separately, demonstrated an adherence to disinformation fostered by the municipality. The Commission found the testimony in both instances uniquely stunning. MR. McNAMARA: Has your township done any studies of Morristown Airport or the Mercer County Airport? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: No, sir. MR. McNAMARA: Or studies of any other airports that have runways that are 5,500 feet in length, that are not Newark Airport? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: No, sir. MR. McNAMARA: What does your township believe the population of transport aircraft would be at Solberg Airport if there were a 5,500 - foot runway? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: We have no conclusion on that, unless it is in one of those interim reports. That data is not relative. MR. McNAMARA: By transport aircraft I mean airline type aircraft, 737s and larger. TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I don't know that anyone has any data on that. MR. McNAMARA: But is that not what the township is afraid of? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: That is correct. MR. McNAMARA: And the continued use of the Airport by aircraft such as the corporate jets is not a concern to the township? Is that it? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: The aircraft that can presently land and take off on the existing runway, as far as type, is not a concern. It is that there have been a lot of complaints about the low approaches and the noise. That is a concern. MR. McNAMARA: Does the township realize that if the runway were made longer that the aircraft would not have to make low approaches? . . . What do we have now, 3,735 feet of asphalt? . . . If the runway had 2,000 feet added to it, the aircraft would be able to come in higher and land further down the runway. TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I believe Mr. Solberg has explained that. MR. McNAMARA: Did that logic fail to convince anybody in Readington? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Certainly at the meetings he has been at the logic has not yet been grasped by the general populace. MR. McNAMARA: How about the township committee? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: The only public expression so far will be the [Township] resolution of Monday [opposing any expansion of the Solberg Airport runway]. MR. McNAMARA: I am going to interrupt my own questioning to see if I have any questions from my fellow Commissioners. Go ahead, Mr. Elliott. MR. ELLIOTT: ***, two factors that contributed most significantly to the fears that aroused the hysteria at the Branchburg meeting were: One, that the runway, if it were extended to 5600 feet, would attract DC-10s and 747s. There were signs all over the place, "Stop the DC-10s." The second factor was that it would destroy property values. Does the Township Committee feel that if the runway was lengthened to 5600 feet it would attract DC-10s and 747s? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Mr. Elliott, I think the governing body, as expressed in this resolution, wants to attract no more higher, noisier, and larger airplanes, whether it is a DC-10 or what. MR. ELLIOTT: Well, what I am aiming at is, whether the Township Committee feels it is a realistic possibility that DC-10s or -- The signs were there and people were terribly aroused by them, and believed that DC-10s were going to be coming in there. TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I don't know that any member of the Township Committee believes or does not believe that DC-10s are possible or not possible to land on an expanded runway. MR. ELLIOTT: I have another question. Let's say it was possible for a DC-10 to land there. TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Yes, sir? MR. ELLIOTT: My next question would be: Why would it land there? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I don't know. I am not an aviation expert. MR. ELLIOTT: The fear was aroused to such a degree that all the newspapers carried stories about the hysteria. That was one of the leading factors contributing to that hysteria. Now, a DC-10 or a 747 can take hundreds of people. There would have to be a reason to land there. I can't understand what the residents of the township, or anyone, would think the reason would be for the aircraft to land there. Do they think that hundreds of people would be waiting at Solberg Airport to get on a DC-10? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I don't know, sir. I don't know. MR. ELLIOTT: All right. The other question that was raised was that it would destroy property values. We have heard quite a bit of testimony here on property values in the vicinity of airports. Now, does the Township Committee have any facts to support the contention that lengthening the runway would have a very deleterious effect on property values in the area? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: To the best of my knowledge, I do not recall the Township Committee members addressing property values, vis-a-vis an expanded Airport. MR. ELLIOTT: But we have heard testimony here from real estate experts that an airport had virtually no effect on the value of property. Have you seen any statistics or figures to contradict that? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: To the best of my knowledge, none has been presented. I would be interested in that myself. MR. ELLIOTT: Then there is nothing to support the two elements that contributed most greatly to the lack of decorum at the Branchburg meeting? There is nothing to support the claims that aroused the residents at that time? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Mr. Elliott, I must say very clearly, being the one that gets the complaints on the Airport, over the last four years, the fear of an expanded airport has been rather consistent -- at least for the last four years. While the bulletins may have brought more people out, I would suspect that what was expressed as fear at the meeting was held by people long before that -- long before those bulletins. MR. ELLIOTT: I am very much aware of the fear. There is no question in my mind that it is very real. My concern is whether there is any real and legitimate basis for that fear, or whether a small contingent of people who are preparing these leaflets -- which I do not think have any basis in fact -- is arousing these fears without any legitimate basis. I don't know whether you can address that or not. TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: No. I must observe, though, that, you know, in the democratic process, people-- We have a great American tradition of pamphleteering that goes back over 200 years. I don't know who prepared these leaflets or put the signs up. I think if you concluded that you might have a suspect you are probably wrong. I think it is the general populace. MR. ELLIOTT: The general populace? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Yes. There are enough people concerned, many people, and there is enough energy there to put the signs up and get the leaflets out. MR. ELLIOTT: Where they actually believed that DC-10s, would come into Solberg if the runway were stretched to 5,600 feet? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I cannot make any conclusions for people whose names are not known. MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you. MR. McNAMARA: May I interrupt with a question right on this point, Jack? MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, sure. MR. McNAMARA Do you believe there would be the same base of people concerned about corporate jets coming in as DC-10s and airline transport aircraft? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Well, the answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is that it is perceived that there are at least two corporate Jets housed at the Airport -- stationed at the Airport, whatever. MR. McNAMARA: And you received complaints about them? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: We received complaints, but the complaints were-- They were more of observation. Every time I have gotten a complaint, I have called the Airport and either Suzanne Nagle or Lorraine Solberg have contacted these people. We rarely get another complaint. They seem satisfied. MR. McNAMARA: So, actually, there is a difference between the population -- I am speaking in statistical terms that would complain, or actually does complain about the use of the Airport by corporate jets-- That population is totally distinct from the population that has been aroused about the possible use of the Airport by airline transports? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I would suspect that your conclusion might well be correct. MR. McNAMARA: Now, you have to be responsive to my question. My question is: There are a few people-- are there not just a few people - who complain about what is going on now with the corporate jets? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: That is correct. MR. McNAMARA: How many people attended this joint meeting? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Hundreds. MR. McNAMARA: Hundreds? The joint meeting was excited by this pamphlet that suggested 747s and DC-10s. Is that correct? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Most definitely that had an impact, as it did 10 years ago. MR. McNAMARA: So if the people in Readington were confronted with ... a 5600 foot runway that would accommodate only the type of aircraft that are corporate jets, one could presume that you would have a similar level of complaints that you are having now and you wouldn't have hundreds of people who would be opposed to that. Is that correct? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I do not believe we are thinking – MR. McNAMARA: No, answer that question, please. This is a yes or no question. Would you like me to repeat it? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: No, sir. I heard you clearly. I think a lot more information is really needed. MR. McNAMARA: ***, it was a yes or no question. TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: There is more information that is needed before anyone can make that conclusion. See, one of the problems here is that when we have asked the Airport owners for more data as to who is flying in and out at what hours and can we not pinpoint who they are, because you cannot read the wing numbers, the response from the Airport operation has been that they don't know who flies in or flies out. MR. McNAMARA: Mr. Clark, let me ask this question: Do you believe there would be more people who would complain about a DC-10 than a corporate jet? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Most definitely, sir. MR. McNAMARA: You received, as you have already testified, a very limited number of complaints about the current operations of corporate jets at the Airport. TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Relatively speaking, yes. MR. McNAMARA: And you believe that that number would increase- You know that that number would increase to several hundred if there was a suggestion of DC-10s or 747s coming into Solberg Airport? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: In my opinion, it would be beyond several hundred. It would be in the thousands. MR. McNAMARA: I would have no doubt about that. Now, all of that being established, let's just posture for the sake of argument, whether it is true or not --I believe it is true -- that a longer runway would cause the noise levels to decrease at the periphery of the Airport of both corporate jets and all other aircraft. If operations at the Airport were going to be limited to just corporate jets and smaller aircraft, why would anyone be opposed to that in excess of those- it should be even less than those who complain now, shouldn't it? There would be less noise. It should be less than those that are made now. Is that correct? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I believe that those observations have been discussed at the Technical Advisory Committee. MR. McNAMARA: I did not ask you if they were discussed. I want to know if I am making a mistake. Do you see a mistake in what I have said? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I am also saying that the conclusion of all that is expressed in this resolution. It is apparent that– MR. McNAMARA: I am not asking a question about this resolution. I am only asking you if the type of aircraft were continued as is and the noise level was reduced, wouldn't that be something that would be beneficial to the township and the neighbors of the Airport? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Mr. Chairman, we in Readington do not believe that any expansion of that runway is beneficial to the township. MR. McNAMARA: I am not asking that. I did not ask that, ***. Let me repeat my question: If the type of aircraft at the Airport were kept as corporate jets and the noise levels were reduced, would that be beneficial to the township and the neighbors of the Airport? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Actually, that is the argument that Mr. Solberg should be making. MR. McNAMARA: ***, yes or no? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I am not qualified to answer that question, sir. MR. McNAMARA: You don't know whether the reduced noise levels, maintaining the same aircraft as are using the Airport now, same type of aircraft, would be beneficial to the township? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I am not qualified to answer that question. MR. McNAMARA: You don't know whether that would be beneficial to the neighbors of the Airport? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: I am not qualified to answer a question with regard to those technical matters. MR. McNAMARA: That is not a technical matter. That is simply a matter about whether you, as a representative of your township, believe that reduced noise levels at the Airport would be appreciated by the neighbors of the Airport and the members of your township. TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Reduced noise would definitely be appreciated. . MR. McNAMARA: And if continued use of the Airport by the same type of corporate jets that are using it now would cause any increased objections? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: What has happened now is that the Solbergs have tried to adjust flight patterns to address that. Since they have done that, there have been minimal complaints. MR. McNAMARA: ***, let me ask you: Do you feel you are being completely responsive with this Commission - with the questioning today? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Yes, sir. MR. McNAMARA: Has your mayor or any of your committeemen instructed you not to make certain representations or answers to questions? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: No, that is not -- They did their very best to express their feelings, which I think will be unanimous on Monday with this resolution. MR. McNAMARA: Do you have anyone in your township who is qualified to answer questions about whether people in your township would appreciate having reduced noise levels? TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR: Any member of the governing body would be willing to respond to that. * * * MR. McNAMARA: We appreciate what you have done. I personally feel that you are not communicating with me, that you are trying to give a politically correct answer. By politically correct, I mean politically correct within the context of the government of Readington Township. That kind of discourse will lead to nothing. We are trying to find out how we can make a relationship between a municipality and an airport better, and the municipality comes in to us and won't speak to us freely. That cannot help.182 Two months later the Commission heard the testimony of the Readington Township Mayor183: DR. TELLING: Well, could you characterize or summarize, if at all possible, what the principle, substantive objections [of the community to a proposed runway expansion at Solberg Airport] are? As you said, you tried to extend, if possible, to ask people to differentiate between that which is emotional and that which is substantive. MAYOR: Well, we have a - and I must refer to it in nebulous terms, because I don't know the name of it, but it came to me from a legislator - report about this thick (indicating) from the FAA. It talks about the different airports. I don't know if it is all of the airports in New Jersey, because we just looked at Solberg. DR. TELLING: The Airport Master Plan? MAYOR: It probably is, or is at least a reference to it. It is about an inch and a half or a little over an inch thick, white cover. MR. ENGLE: When did that come? MAYOR: I got it at the last meeting from, as I said, one of our legislators. MR. ENGLE: That could be the Economic Development -- the Economic Plan -- the Economic Report. MAYOR: It could very well be, because I immediately loaned it to one of the committee people. I didn't even see the cover, except it is white, and I know it has the spiral binding. MR. ENGLE: Yes. That is the Economic Viability Study. MAYOR: And it had a spiral binding to it. Of course, the extension of the runway is the big problem. Let me go back in history a little bit. Some 30 years ago, if you will recall, the Port of New York Authority wanted to put in a fourth jetport, and it was right over the Solberg Airport. It extended all the way up to Round Valley, which was just being opened, and all kinds of crazy things. At that point -- and I will tell you honestly, I was one of the leaders in founding the Jetport Association which even tually beat that back and retained our homes and farms for us. There has been a long-term rumbling, I think, about the airport. Most people have accepted it. They thought it was kind of nice, until they heard that this was going to be, possibly-- The FAA Master Plan would possibly give them the moneys to extend that runway. A runway of over a mile long really gave everybody the shudders. DR. TELLING: Well, if I could-- I apologize for interrupting. As I understood it, when I just looked at the air chart to see what the longest runway is, they talk about it as 3,750 feet or something? MAYOR: I didn't think it was that long. I thought they had permission from the Planning Board to extend that to 3,000. MR. ELLIOTT: It is 3,000 paved, 750 unpaved. MAYOR: Okay. Yes. Right, thank you. DR. TELLING: Okay. It is 3,000 paved, an additional 740 unpaved. MAYOR: That is unpaved, yes. DR. TELLING: The request was to expand this to– MR. ENGLE: To 5,600. MAYOR: To 5,670, yes. MR. ELLIOTT: They would move the runway. DR. TELLING: Okay MAYOR: And according to this economic study, will allow 747s to land. That is what the study says. MR. ENGLE: That is not the Economic Study, then. MAYOR: This one says-- You know, I wish I had it with me. I called, as a matter of fact, the Committeeman I gave it to. I think he is in England, because I got no response at all. DR. TELLING: If I could, and you are willing, Mayor ***, afterwards if you could locate the document, could we have a copy sent? MAYOR: As a matter of fact, I promised *** I would send her a copy of it. DR. TELLING: Oh, okay MAYOR: The cover - just as you do research books - and that page. That page, very specifically, says that 747s can land there, and by the year 2010, they anticipate transportation- I'm not going to be able to go to the Solberg Airport and go to Spain if I want to, but it will be 747s will be allowed to land there. That is a very disturbing situation in a country airport, surrounded by people not only on the edge of a National Register, historic village, but surrounded by people who have come to our Township from all over the world, literally. They work for all the AT&Ts available. They live in what they-- Everybody lives in his own castle no matter what size it is, and there are some pretty hefty priced houses there. DR. TELLING: Mayor ***, if I could ask, have you had any discussions with anybody who has either reinforced the accuracy of that perception in your mind, or have you now-- Do you believe that to be true or not true? MAYOR: What, that study? DR. TELLING: That 747s could land on a 5,600 - foot runway. MAYOR: I'm not an aviator, so I really can't say if they can or not. DR. TELLING: No, no. I'm asking– MAYOR: I just have to take what I see. DR. TELLING: I'm asking what your opinion based on what evidence. What is your perception based on the evidence that you have available to you currently? MAYOR: Well, if the runway is extended to 5,670, I have to accept what I see in a report that is written by an official agency. * * * DR. TELLING: To what extent, if you are aware, are the kinds of noise concerns that many of the residents have? Are they highly localized to the airport area or are they more disbursed? To the extent that you have logged complaints, has anybody had the chance to look, are they, essentially, a similar complaint from a small number of people or is it widely disbursed? I'm just trying to get, with the population you have, how much of a problem. MAYOR: Okay. I will tell you I think it is pretty widely disbursed . . . People have complained probably on about the 360 sides of the airport. DR. TELLING: So it surrounds the whole area? MAYOR: Yes. They have complained about being buzzed by the small planes. They have complained about air jockeys, which-I'm sure that everybody is doing loop-d-loops and carrying on like crazy up there. They have complained about that jet I mentioned. They have complained about just noise in general. Of course, there was a big complaint about-- It was a FedEx, I think, airplane that had to land in an emergency situation there at Solberg.184 Once the explanation came through they accepted it, but he had to jettison some fuel. The Mayor who preceded me had the worst time in the world trying to get an answer from the FAA about this. That is just plain rudeness. That could have been solved in one fell swoop. Instead, it took months. Gil Maupin came, I mean everybody came to talk about this thing. What had happened was, the pilot had an emergency situation. They could have said that. They denied it at first. "Oh, no, you didn't have a plane there." I had people saying to me, "Are you kidding? I stood there. The thing was over my head, and the stuff landed all over my cars, and my gardens, and this and that." So each little incident -- and that could have been a more serious incident than what it was, fortunately. But each little incident magnifies, and people are simply- They are just getting more and more angry, and they're frantic thinking that there could be 5,670 foot runway -- absolutely frantic. This was a cute little airport, and wasn't it nice to be near it and look at those cute little planes taking off? But nowadays- it used to be you could read the numerals on a plane, and today, you can't read them very well. They shrunk them. * * * MAYOR: But if the people can't see them they can't identify- Subsequently, they feel like they have been had, frankly. That the airline people, the air people in general, are up there just having a good old time and they're going to fall into their pools at any moment. They just really are unhappy. There are people who are saying, "Oh, I have a slick on the water in my pool." Well, I don't know how they can have that, but it is all-- The perception is that the airport is doing it. There are several people who have lived there for maybe 10 years or so, and they say, "Oh, it was such a nice little airport years ago. It was so much fun to sit on my deck and watch those little planes takeoff. Weren't they fun?" But now they're not. There are more there, and you've got that jet. That is all we hear about, that jet, and there is noise. There are noisy airplanes, and they don't want their Sundays to be so disturbed. DR. TELLING: All right. A last question for myself, if I may at the moment. Are there any, given your experience, specific thoughts or recommendations which you would like to bring to the Commission's attention and consideration in going forward in terms of either improving community/airport relations, or development, or the process of having these issues of expansion or not go forward? MAYOR: Well, airport relations, of course, like any relations with anybody who has a complaint, can always be improved. There is no question. Many times there have been calls down there, "Oh, somebody just called and a something or another has gone up, and can't you do something about it?" Well, from what Gil Maupin said, anybody can land in any airport he wants in New Jersey and takeoff from one, too. But it seems, very honestly, that Suzie is very nice and sweet. People tend to feel that Thor Solberg is arrogant. They tend to feel that if they call down there that they don't get satisfaction, at least from Thor. I like Thor. He doesn't bother me, because the airport doesn't bother me that much. But I think that you have to have almost a PR person in place to deal with that whole scene. BAD RELATIONS: LESSONS LEARNED The Commission finds that the municipality hosting an airport should provide fair public hearings, investigate and address the material issues relating to disputes between its airports and residents, and report to the community the facts and findings of an investigation. The municipality should rebut any rumors and misinformation about the airport, especially where such misinformation shocks the public. In reviewing the testimony from other municipalities that have conflicts with their airports, the insight provided by Montgomery Township into the residents' fears of jets and noise is most useful. In Fairfield Township, which is home to the Essex County Airport, owned and operated by the Essex County Improvement Authority ("ECIA"), the Mayor says the primary concern of residents is noise and increased jet traffic. Similarly, the Mayor of Marlboro Township expressed the desire to keep the Marlboro Airport as a quiet little recreational facility. These examples reinforce the Commission's impression that popular hostility to airport improvements is a result of lack of understanding and miscommunication. With new technological advances significantly reducing aircraft noise emissions, airports are becoming less conspicuous because of noise. In addition, general aviation airports do not have the potential of becoming major air transport airports simply because they upgrade to accommodate business jets. Footnotes: 136 Approval of conflicting airport traffic patterns is a matter exclusively within the domain of the FAA. 137 Exhibit 26, Economic Impact of New Jersey's General Aviation Airports, page 59. 138 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 81. 139 Exhibit 26, Economic Impact of New Jersey's General Aviation Airports, page 124. 140 NJGASC, 4/30/96, page 55. 141 Exhibit 26, Economic Impact of New Jersey's General Aviation Airports, page 81. 142 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 203. 143 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 204. 144 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 210. 145 Exhibit 26, Economic Impact of New Jersey's General Aviation Airports, page 138. 146 NJGASC, 2/27/96, page 49 et seq.; see Exhibit 40. 147 It was also noted on the record that Hillsborough Township did "not advocate expansion of Kupper Airport, [but] we certainly recognize the importance of its preservation to all levels of New Jersey's economy." See NJGASC, 02/27/96, pages 50-77 at 52. 148 NJGASC, 10/31/95, pages 5-27. 149 NJGASC, 3/27/96, pages 23-39. 150 NJGASC, 3/26/96, page 11. 151 NJGASC, 5/28/96, pages 142-153. 152 NJGASC, 3/27/96, pages 132-157. 153 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 91. 154 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 88. 155 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 72 156 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 40 et seq. 157 NJGASC, 3/27/97 page 55-56. 158 NJGASC, 3/27/97 page 81. 159 NJGASC, 3/27/97 page 84. 160 NJGASC, 3/27/97 page 86. 161 NJGASC, 3/27/97 page 62. 162 NJGASC, 3/27/97 page 72. 163 NJGASC, 3/27/96, pages 73-75. 164 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 75. 165 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 64. 166 NJGASC, 3/27/97 page 73. 167 NJGASC, 3/27/96, pages 45-46. 168 NJGASC, 3/27/97 page 55 [Emphasis added]. 169 NJGASC, 3/27/96, pages 48-49. 170 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 52. 171 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 53. 172 NJGASC, 3/27/96 page 72. 173 NJGASC, 3/27/96 page 44. 174 NJGASC, 3/27/96, pages 92-93. 175 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 93. 176 NJGASC, 3/27/96, pages 94-95. 177 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 93. 178 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 96. 179 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page 93. 180 NJGASC, 5/28/96, page 170 et seq. 181 NJGASC, 3/27/96, page. 158 et seq. 182 NJGASC, 3/27/96, pages 183-194. 183 NJGASC, 5/28/96, pages 170-198/ 184 The Commission has concluded that there was never any incident which involved a Fed-Ex jet (or in fact any heavy jet aircraft) landing at the Solberg Airport. However, there was an heavy jet aircraft that, during an emergency situation, attempted to land at Newark Airport, did jettison fuel several thousand feet over Readington and Branchburg Township.