SIMSBURY AIRPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY
Study Meeting #1
January 16, 2008, 2:30 p.m.
Town of Simsbury
Meeting Report
Attendees:
Name |
Affiliation |
Rich Sawitzke |
Town of Simsbury |
Hiram Peck |
Town of Simsbury |
Gary Haynes |
Town of East Granby, Community Development |
Kurt Walton |
ConnDOT |
Richard Doucette (via teleconference) |
FAA |
Bill Thomas |
Simsbury Flying Club |
James K. Smith |
Phonon Corporation |
Scott Barnett |
Town of Simsbury, Zoning Commission |
Margery Winters |
Conservation Commission |
Fran Armentano |
Town of Granby, Community Development |
John Krug |
Town of Granby, Economic Development |
John Loomis |
Town of Simsbury, Planning Commission |
Charity Folk |
Simsbury Chamber of Commerce |
Dave Ryan |
Citizen of Simsbury |
Jim Wakim |
Brown, Rudnick Isreal/ Airport Realty Associates |
Emil Dahlquist |
Town of Simsbury, Design Review |
Howard Beach |
Town of Simsbury, Planning Dept. |
Nick Mason |
Town of Simsbury, Board of Finance |
Mary Glassman |
Town of Simsbury, First Selectman |
Paul McDonnell |
Clough Harbour & Associates (CHA) |
Erin Rowett |
CHA |
Darren Mochrie |
RKG Associates |
Meeting Purpose:
This was the first meeting of the study’s advisory committee. This meeting was held to review the findings of Task 1 – Airport Inspection and Environmental Review and the status of Tasks 2 – 4. This meeting also introduced the study scope and issues to the representatives of the Towns of Simsbury, Granby, and East Granby and those not present at the Kickoff Meeting held on November 15, 2007.
Key Items of Discussion/Decisions:
* Advisory Committee (AC) – An informal AC has been established to provide guidance on all study matters. The AC includes representatives from the Towns of Simsbury, Granby, and East Granby, airport operator, airport owner, ConnDOT, FAA, and other local organizations. It was suggested that representatives from the following organization also be included on the AC:
Town of Simsbury Design Review Committee
* It was suggested that the next Study meeting be held approximately 10 weeks from this meeting (April) to review the findings of Task 2 – 4 and discuss Tasks 5 -7. An additional Study meeting and Public Information meeting should be held the May/June timeframe to discuss the final draft report.
* A presentation was shown in order to facilitate discussion of the current airport conditions and the efforts being made towards the Airport Development Plan, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and the Financial Feasibility Analysis. Major Discussion Points:
1. Working Paper #1 will be updated based on comments received form the Advisory Committee. An electonic version of the report and the appendices are available by sending a request to Erin Rowett at CHA. (erowett@cha-llp.com) Please send comments by February 16, 2008.
2. The full report is intended to be used as a decision support tool for the Town. As this report is a financial feasibility analysis for the Town of Simsbury, CHA intends to be conservative in the projections and costs.
3. Once the Town has completed this study, a decision will be reached about whether to further consider acquisition of the Airport. If the Town chooses to pursue acquisition, an additional analysis will be needed and will include environmental investigations/testing and property appraisals.
4. CHA does not recommend including a noise analysis in the study. Based on past experience, CHA does not believe the impacts of the aircraft operating in and out of Simsbury Airport are significant enough for consideration by the FAA for remediation. Bill Thomas, the manager of Simsbury Flying Club, says he has never received a noise complaint in his time as manager.
5. Design Standards:
a. The FAA has completed an Airspace review of the non-standard offset of the taxiway in front of the fabric hangars (east of the runway). The FAA suggested the Simsbury Flying Club to retain the letter for documentation in the event the Town purchases the Airport. This letter will be included in the report appendix.
b. The relocation of Wolcott Road or shorting of the runway will be necessary to meet the design standards of the Runway safety Area and Object Free Area on the north end of the runway (Runway 21 end).
c. The runway length is not a design standard, but FAA does provide recommendations based on certain factors such as elevation and temperature. Justification is required by the FAA for each runway extension prior to funding. CHA has recommended extending the runway to at least 2,500 feet (300 ft) in order to accommodate 75% of the design aircraft. Charter aircraft typically need runway lengths of 2,500 to 3,000 feet to operate. Runway extension alternatives will be developed in task 2 of the study. The development of the project, justification, feasibility, environmental impacts, costs, and opinions of the Town and users will be considered in these development recommendations.
6. The Financial Feasibility Analysis will consider the “highest and best use” of the land. The analysis will take into account factors such as the current and proposed zoning, how much land is actually developable, the management options of the airport by the Town, and the potential uses for the current structures on the Airport.
7. Before any project with new development can begin, more in depth environmental field surveys will be needed to investigate the threat to endangered species, cultural resources, and wetlands. A Phase II Environmental Site Investigation is recommended, if the Town chooses to take the next step towards acquisition.
8. If the Town of Simsbury purchases Simsbury Airport, the Airport will be eligible for FAA/State funding. The Airport is not currently eligible, as it is privately owned. The FAA has stressed that in order to receive funding for development projects (i.e., runway extension) a plan must be in place to correct the non-standard features.
a. The current funding system:
FAA |
ConnDOT |
Town/Local |
95% |
3.75% |
1.25% |
b. FAA funding is eligible for the costs land acquisition, road relocation, legal fees, and associated costs if it is to satisfy safety requirements. The FAA will not condemn land.
c. Examples of projects eligible for FAA/State funding: airport studies, acquisition costs, land acquisition, safety improvements, pavement rehabilitation and construction, and airfield development projects.
d. Examples of projects not eligible for FAA/State funding: daily operating costs, new buildings, and building renovations.
| 
