December 5, 2006
BAA Meeting/Master Plan Public Meeting
Present were: Commissioners Donovan, Grenier, Lamontagne, and Lafleur; Commissioners Chagnon, Roy, and Chair Danderson were absent. Harvey Oest, Larry Piazzola, Carol Niewola, DOT; Paul Cusson, Patrick MacQueen, PersonNameEric Kaminsky, media and public.
In the absence of Chair Danderson, Vice Chair Grenier conducted the regular meeting of the BAA to be followed by a review of the airport master plan by Harvey Oest where public comments will be taken.
Minutes
Commissioner Lafleur moved to accept the minutes of the October 10, 2006 meeting; Commissioner Donovan seconded and the motion carried.
Financials
Commissioner Lafleur questioned maintenance supplies as the line item is overspent. Mr. Kaminsky explained that work is being done on the fuel truck. It has been at the public works garage for over a month. If the airport is able to get a few more years out of the truck, the expense will be well worth the money.
Lease collections are now at 100%.
Commissioner Donovan moved to accept the financial report; Commissioner Lafleur seconded and the motion carried.
Proposed Letter to FAA
Mr. Kaminsky asked Senior Aviation Planner Carol Niewola of the NH DOT to explain the request for this letter to the FAA. She noted that AIP 14 is still open and in a conference to discuss what was left on the design, it was determined that only the environmental component of the design is left. This component however is already covered in AIP 13 meaning that AIP 14 could be closed out. The letter to the FAA is one of the first steps to closing out the design which is AIP 14. Commissioner Donovan moved send the letter; Commissioner Lafleur seconded and the motion carried.
Airport Managers Report
Mr. Kaminsky reported that on November 30, Pike came to the airport to seal the crack on the runway and they will not be able to do the project this fall. There are no ramifications to this decision as it will not impact the runway at all. The crack is off to the side at the end of the runway. In the spring, Pike will cut the piece out that has heaved, put in the underdrain, work the sub-base and put a patch. Commissioner Donovan confirmed that the quote of $25,000 will not be affected by the delay.
Commissioner Lafleur moved to accept the Managers report; Commissioner Donovan seconded and the motion carried.
Pilot Comments
none
BAA Comments
none
Commissioner Lafleur moved to adjourn; Commissioner Donovan seconded and the motion carried. The meeting ended at 6:50 p.m.
Public Meeting re: Master Plan
Commissioner Grenier opened the public meeting stating that everyone who wants to speak to the issue of the Master Plan will have an opportunity.
Mr. Kaminsky explained that the airport master plan talks about three different things: airport history, where the airport is now and where it will go in years to come, which is the emphasis of the plan. There are scenarios and alternatives, and growth predictions using data from the NH aviation system plan from the State. Considerable attention was given in the master plan for an Instrument Landing System in the future of the airport. Previous master plans have also mentioned an ILS, therefore this is nothing new.
Mr. Kaminsky stated that during his association with the airport he has seen the positive impact it has had on the region. The Airport goes unnoticed and most of the time, no one is affected by the airport. He gave an example of the airport facility being used for a local medical emergency. There are also several local companies that fly in and out of the airport including, Fraser, CityWausau, Car Freshner, placeCityCorning and many others.
Vice Chair Grenier commented that there are several members of the Airport Authority in the room as well as Carol Niewola of the NHDOT; Ralph Nicola Rusin, Aviation Planner from the FAA is expected. The Airports Engineer of Record, Harvey Oest and Larry Piazzola will make the presentation and questions will be addressed when the presentation is complete.
Harvey Oest reported that the Master Plan project is a requirement of the FAA to keep everything current at the airport and to set plans for the next 20 years. Plans are funded through user fees with 95% of the money coming from the FAA; 2.5% from the State and 2.5% from the local sponsor. The Master Plan has seven chapters and attempts to forecast future growth and what is needed to meet the airports goals. The Plan touches on environmental issues and does an implementation and financial analysis. Ralph Nicola Rusin entered the meeting.
Goals and Major Elements
Larry Piazzola explained that goals during the first phase are to enhance the viability of the air space over the airport; improve terminal area facilities; promote the attractiveness of the airport to aviation and non-aviation users. There are alternatives for upgrading the instrument approach with two systems available, the ILS and the GPS systems.
Once it is decided to increase and upgrade the approach, more stringent FAA guidelines come into effect. Currently the primary surface must be 500 feet wide with no objects or buildings within the primary surface. For a precision approach, that primary surface would be increased to 1000 feet wide. With that in mind, the Master Plan looked at properties that were on either side of the primary surface and recommend purchase of some properties. The additional approach is needed to have clear space with the ILS. A 34-1 slope or 3% grade would require cutting trees. The ILS would require the installation of a localized antenna and glide slope antennae which would give a pilot alignment to the runway and glide will give a rate of decent. An approach lighting system 2400 feet long would enhance the
precision approach; however it is not written in stone that it has to be that long. It could be 1400 feet or there could be no additional lighting at all.
In the plan the terminal area would be adapted to meet the forecast and some existing hangars would need to be moved. The reconfiguration will allow for one additional hangar. The plan would also address environmental issues.
Mr. Oest went on to explain that the State did a review of airports and found that the placeNorth Country is without an airport with an ILS. There are two airports in NH where the ILS could be installed and those are StateplaceBerlin and Whitefield. The Master Plan proposes to put the ILS in placeStateBerlin as opposed to Whitefield. Having more than 5000 feet of runway allows placeStateBerlin to have corporate jets to come in. The ILS would make the jets safer by allowing them to get a vertical guidance as to how they are coming in. This State and the FAA are in a planning process and this is not the end. There would have to be a full environmental study and a full public hearing process. With the right political environment, there could be 100% funding for the ILS. In
terms of future development and corporate jet activity, the ILS is not expected to increase either.
Carol Niewola, NHDOT Senior Aviation Planner stated that she has been working with Mr. Kaminsky on the Master Plan process. The plan is a chance to look at opportunities and what can happen at the airport over 20 years. If we miss an opportunity, it could reduce the economic good of not only the airport but the region. At this time, there is not the satellite coverage for a global position system (gps).
Ms. Niewola added that this is not the first time an ILS has come up; it has been in past master plans. Having an ILS could help with economic development. Of 25 airports in the State, there are 13 that receive money for capital improvements and they are all in the Lakes Region south. There is nothing in the mountain regions of StateVermont, placeStateMaine or NH, making the argument for a safety issue. These are ideas and they are being put out for public comments. There will be more meetings and more details and more information to come.
Ralph Nicola Rusin Airport Planer from the FAA reported that his division works with airport sponsors such as the Berlin Airport Authority. There is a Procedures Division that evaluates the opportunity to put in an ILS. An ILS would require a localized antenna and another antenna that transmits a vertical beam which is critical in mountainous terrain. To justify the benefit to cost ratio, placeStateBerlin does not come close because there is not enough traffic. The FAA are trustees of AIP money and they have to be sure it is spent properly. By the rules that Congress has, the money cannot be spent on this project. The airport would not get a huge benefit with this as it does not increase the minimums.
Mr. Rusin went on to say that on the other hand, it is up to the FAA to work with the State on the safety of mountainous terrain, with its icy conditions and there needs to be a selection of air fields available in the case of an emergency. There are technical developments coming in satellite navigation; in five or six years we will have the ability. As far as federal funding for the ILS, the first priority will be those airports that can get the basic minimums. The whole field of general aviation is evolving.
The FAA is not in a position now to do this project but the feeling is that within 5 or 6 years there will be technology that will make taking property unnecessary. Virtual vision in the cockpit is in the future.
Will the lights be necessary for the minimums? (PersonNameLee Dube)
Mr. Rusin replied that the lights improve visibility 1.5 mile under the current approach.
Carol Niewola added that the approach light system is a visual cue for the pilot to see that the runway is in front of them. Larry Piazzola noted that the airport could do the approach with fewer lights.
Mr. Dube commented that the ILS would not bring any economic growth. Mr. Rusin stated that the FAA has no opinion on growth. Larry Piazzola concurred that there would be no reason for an increase.
If the ILS will not spur development for 20 years and there is better technology coming, then is safety the reason for the discussion? (Al Cayouette). Mr. Rusin related that there is no benefit to having an ILS in this case and he would support protecting the land.
What kind of plane will be able to land at the airport with an ILS, that cant land here now? Ms. Niewola said that there are no new types of aircraft that will come as a result of having an ILS. The system would only make landing safer when the weather is poor. Mr. Rusin added that with safety comes reliability and when safety is improved, the airport becomes more reliable. The airport will have reliable access.
Is the runway 80% useful,l and with this will be 100% useful? Mr. Rusin responded that this runway is starting at 90%. Ms. Niewola commented that she’s heard accounts of pilots not flying to the placeNorth Country because there is chance of snow or bad weather and they take their business elsewhere. For a business person to get stranded overnight is expensive.
How many houses and how much land? Richard Lamontagne, CityMilan Selectman stated that placeCityMilan is totally against the project. Any amounts of taking are too much. Larry Piazzola voiced that with the full approach of 2600 feet, there would be three residential properties and 133 acres, and the widening would take two homes south and one off addressStreetFrench Hill Road. If there were no lights, then three homes would be needed.
Will French Hill Road be moved again? Mr. Piazzola clarified that there would be no impact to Levitt Stream and the placement of addressStreetFrench Hill Road will remain the same.
If the project is supposed to be 100% paid up front, why does the plan have the BAA funding $600,000? Mr. Oest noted that there is about $45,000 of local commitment for the project; however it was noted that local cost is at $632,000 according to the report.
Is it accurate when the Master Plan says that the implementation plan will be financed 100% by the FAA? Mr. Rusin responded that under the current conditions, it would not. Ms. Niewola reported that the Master Plan covers 20 years of projects including obstruction removal that is needed for a clear surface. 2.5% of all of these projects are local match. Mr. Oest added that in 2009, $362,000 is for hangar replacement as there are three hangars in the area of the ILS that would have to be moved.
Mr. Piazzola advised that the whole master plan has to be approved by the City, State and FAA. Ms. Niewola indicated that the environmental process will refine what future projects will look like. It takes into consideration and reviews alternatives and continues with process.
In the event that there is a warrant article at Milan’s Town Meeting standing in opposition to the plan for an ILS; would that have an impact? (Mr. Cayouette) Ms. Niewola explained that no decision has been made at the State level and the environmental assessment is the next process. Once we come out of the process, there can be a decision that this is or is not the place for an ILS. There is another public use airport in Whitefield and the ILS could potentially go to another airport. All the money and benefits could also go to the other airport.
Commissioner Grenier voiced that he has been in opposition of the project because of issues with cost/benefit. He asked how the FAA can spend that kind of money in Whitefield when they have only a 4,000 foot runway. Ms. Niewola stated that they meet the minimum criteria for runway length for a precision approach.
In the event that there is a warrant article at Milan’s Town Meeting standing in opposition to the plan for an ILS; would that have an impact. Mr. Cayouette asked his question again, saying that it had not been answered. Ms. Niewola established that yes, a warrant article would have an impact.
Mr. Rusin commented that the FAA’s relationship is with StateplaceBerlin. The FAA needs to look to the airport sponsor to be sure they have what they need. The problems may be mitigated. There is technical assistance available and whether there are other alternatives. He added that they are always trying to learn from the comments. The facilities are for the community. If the ILS is not in the system, it will still hold together.
Mike Fortier expressed his opinion that government money is being spent to study the ILS when the airport meets none of the necessary criteria. He referred to a letter from Mr. Rusin that should have shut down the process, but instead it continues at a greater cost to the government and taxpayers. If the project does not meet any of the minimum criteria, how can it stand up to eminent domain and justify taking even one home? He went on to say that there are no documented aborted landings because of weather. The City of placeCityBerlin taxpayers are funding this and it is time to stop the insanity. There are people making money doing the surveys. Other communities have grown without an ILS; not because of having an ILS. He addressed an earlier comment regarding the airport
going unnoticed and stated that placeCityMilan residents notice the light and the noise. There is a threat to placeCityMilan’s legacy and heritage. Taking homes and land would amount to added dollars on the tax rate. This proposal should and would not stand up in any eminent domain proceedings.
Mr. Rusin responded by saying that the study was necessary to get the information. It took the study to put together the numbers. We now have to put together the pragmatic solution and come up with how we can get the most out of this airport.
There was a comment from the audience about people coming to the placeNorth Country to get away from big cities. The citizen did not believe that in the next 20 years, there would be corporate jets and expansion enough to justify the cost. The project would take away from what the residents moved to placeCityMilan for.
With this project not falling under the FAA guidelines for funding, is there something in the works? (Mr. Cayouette) Mr. Rusin advised that he cant see it happening within five years and during that time, the FAA will be looking at how to use satellite navigation. Maybe some properties will become available and sold voluntarily. He added that the plan should not be revised on the fly. The FAA cant lobby for any sponsor. The project would have to have strong local support to happen.
Ms. Niewola maintained that this is the first draft. She felt that this is good feedback and is part of the process; leaders will all get a chance to review whether to move forward.
Are these improvements to accommodate the federal prison? (Elton) Commissioner Grenier assured the group that the prison and airport are not interconnected. Prisoners are definitely not flown in. There is no interrelation, whatsoever.
Lee Dube speculated that an ILS would be an expense to the taxpayers in StateplaceBerlin and he assumed that as the airport progresses; there will be maintenance costs that would be significant. Commissioner Grenier clarified that the Berlin Airport Authority was created by legislative act in 1947 and operates with a seven member board. There are four members of the Berlin City Council, one member from the Milan Selectmen, one member from the Coos County Commissioners and the Mayor of Berlin presides as the Chair. The BAA is a separate body politic from the City of placeCityBerlin. The BAA can bond but cannot encumber the city and it is a stand alone entity. The city has subsidized the airport, at worse case by $50,000 in a year and best case $17,000.
Does the airport authority have the power of eminent domain? Yes, but it needs to be in the airport’s best interest.
Mike Fortier commented that there is a history of StateplaceBerlin taking by eminent domain. The first time, it was done by the State; placeStateBerlin took land a second time and they are looking to go a third time. To the people creating the Master Plan this is only paper work.
Should there be focus on getting funding first, before taking land? Commissioner Grenier reasoned that eminent domain is very premature to be discussing at this time. It is only a remote possibility.
Mr. Cayouette reiterated his understanding of the precision approach. The safety zone needs to be increased which means the airport will take six properties. The project does not meet the criteria for funding from the FAA. The State wants this but it will not increase the minimums. There will be the same amount of days snowed in; traffic will not increase; fuel sales will not increase and there is no projection for an increase in traffic. It may increase operations by 10% over 20 years. No plane has crashed due to the lack of a precision approach.
What does the Airport Manager support? (PersonNameLee Dube) Mr. Kaminsky responded that the process started when StateBerlin was due to update the airport’s Master Plan and the State spoke about having a precision approach in the North Country; that means StateplaceBerlin or Whitefield. This has been a learning process and one year ago, we did not know what impact the ILS would have. He added that he has serious concerns because the ILS does not improve minimums. The system may be doable without lights. He invited anyone to come and view the plan noting that he does not believe we have the answer yet. If we can have the system without the landing lights, why would we not want it that way? The airport wants to get along with the neighbors and we will only find
information by talking.
Lee Dube established that something should be sent out to the abutters of the airport. Mr. Rusin reasoned that the process is to fully disclose any plans and allow the public process.
What is the range of the landing lights? (Waldo Williams) Mr. Rusin noted that it is about mile system and the glare may have a significant impact. The lights only come on when there is an approach; however the lights focus on the aircraft, not the sides. Ms. Niewola added that it depends a lot on the weather.
When a property is taken, how is value determined? Mr. Rusin indicated that the property is purchased by looking at the market sale of comparable property not affected by the airport. Relocation costs are also paid for. Homeowners should be held harmless and there should not be any out of pocket expenses. If someone wanted to trade up, they could pay the difference.
Mr. Rusin reiterated that eminent domain is far into the future. There is a need to refine the plan to meet the concerns of citizens. We will be in a good position to understand what is doable in several years.
A citizen asked about the results of the elections that had a question about eminent domain. Commissioner Grenier clarified that the question had to do with private developers taking property and it was a state wide question.
A citizen asked if Whitefield can be brought up to same position in the process as placeStateBerlin? Perhaps they want the ILS and will not have opposition. Commissioner Grenier relayed that he is against the project because he is afraid that placeStateBerlin will get stuck with a bill. Ms. Niewola reported that Whitefield is in meetings with the State and they are trying to find answers. There is an education component that needs to take place and it will take time before they reach the same place.
Commissioner Grenier agreed that abutters should get a letter informing them of the public process. They should get certified notices which would be in the best interest of all concerned.
A citizen commented that if placeCityMilan doesn’t look at the worse case scenario now, it will not be time when the bulldozers show up.
Harvey Oest explained that the next step is the environmental review process.
There being no further comments from the public, Commissioner Grenier closed the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Susan Tremblay
Administrative Assistant
| 
