Monday night the Public Works Committee met in Council Chambers at City Hall. The meeting, called by Chairman Lautenschleger, was to discuss two issues, the New Philadelphia Airport Master Plan, and the purchase of property owned by Mary Egli located to the southeast of the existing airport runway. An audience of approximately 12 citizens and others was present.
Mr. Lautenschleger explained that the proposed Airport Master Plan to update the New Philadelphia Airport has been discussed for a number of years and was being brought to the City Council for adoption by the City to serve as a guideline for future improvement of the existing airport.
The FAA requires a master plan for airport improvements and upgrades. There are a number of options in the Master Plan for upgrading the airport for larger aircraft. Mayor Taylor said he wants City Council to be fully updated on the Master Plan to aid them in making long range decisions concerning the airport’s future. He explained major airport projects are, if approved, reimbursed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at 95% of the cost, the City paying the remaining five percent. City Council has not adopted a Master Plan in the past, and, said the Mayor, it is not required that it does. He desires a consensus of opinion from all concerned, the community, private individuals, businesses, on what Harry Clever Field should look like down the road. “Do we want to develop it or keep it a Mom and Pop field,” he asked. “At some time the FAA is going to require a decision as to what we are going to do with the airport and that will probably happen in the next five years when the runway needs resurfacing.”
Loretta Snyder, representative from Michael Baker, Jr. Associates, the consultants for the airport, stated that Clever Field is part of the national airport system which extends throughout the entire country. Businesses utilize smaller airports frequently and that is why almost every county has an airport.
Councilwoman Cox asked why the plan had to be approved when the Mayor previously stated that it did not have to be approved. She also questioned the number of options in the Plan and the effect of approving all of them rather than a single one.
Mr. Ted Gentsch, of Lauren Manufacturing, and a member of the Airport Commission, answered, stating, “The FAA requires you to look at every conceivable way of configuring the runway and expanding it, and the costs of expanding it and the impact on the community…and that you have done due diligence in expanding it at the current site. So, every alternative is outlined in there…The best alternative is Number 4, the next best alternative is a green field site.” He suggested, ‘If the number of alternatives is to great (seven), you can approve the Plan using only Option 4.
Cox asked why the Plan should be adopted when it contains two Alternatives which are “not recommended” and two that are “not practical,” to which Gentsch replied, “It’s a plan.”
Lautenschleger stated that the Master Plan is an overview of every possible scenario and doesn’t mean what’s going to be adopted or moved forward.
Cox replied that plans had been proposed in 2001 and 2004 which were not adopted because of removing of people’s homes and the cemetery. Lautenschleger said that the Plan was part of larger thinking and moving ahead in the future, and “If we don’t want to adopt any of this, then there are [other] scenarios. One, we could have public hearings and put this out here and have people review it and use their input. That’s not a bad thing as they can see everything that’s on there and then they can go back and maybe work on it some more. If you decide that you don’t want any growth at the airport,…then we should get that out on the table so the Airport Commission can understand and then they [may] decide to let the airport go. That’s an extreme scenario.”
A discussion between Lautenschleger and Cox ensued concerning removal of houses. Lautenschleger insisted that home removals was never discussed. He went on to say that such statements were scare tactics generated by unsigned letters being sent to residents in areas around the airport. (Ed: The letters in question are copies of the of the recent blog on this site, see New Philadelphia Airport Renovation, which were copied and sent without our knowledge.)
The Mayor stated that the Airport Commission has “no legal authority to move forward and pick an option, it has to be City Council.” He went on to say that he wants to get all the people concerned involved and make a decision about the airport which will decide its future. Cox stated her concern that there isn’t enough property at the present airport for expansion of needed hangers and other such improvements and suggested that the alternative of building another airport would be the most logical move.
Mr. Don Kennedy, a local realtor, asked if the FAA, in a past meeting, would not commit to a new airport as the cost would be in the range of 20-million dollars, but would commit to a new runway because they felt the option of a new airport was not feasible,. Mr Gentsh replied the FAA did not commit to anything. “If you read the Master Plan through to the end”, he said, “you’ll find that if you go through all the options, they say in there something to the effect…that you should consider a green field site. A green field site or a new airport would be the option for this community which would create the least amount of problems in terms of relocation, obstacles such as Schoenbrunn Park, that sort of thing. Getting everybody politically on the same page would be required, a champion, as the mayor mentioned, before that step could be made, and there are some sites which would be quite suitable in Tuscarawas County.” Gentsch went on to say that the FAA did not rule out a new airport but, when it was explored in the recent past, the political acceptance, county and municipalities, was not forthcoming.
Mr. Lautenschleger requested the Service Director, Mr. Zucal, to arrange a meeting with all interested parties in the near future to obtain concerns and comments concerning the Master Plan. The meeting closed with no action being taken and the matter of the property purchase from Mary Egli not discussed.
Mr. Lautenschleger explained that the proposed Airport Master Plan to update the New Philadelphia Airport has been discussed for a number of years and was being brought to the City Council for adoption by the City to serve as a guideline for future improvement of the existing airport.
The FAA requires a master plan for airport improvements and upgrades. There are a number of options in the Master Plan for upgrading the airport for larger aircraft. Mayor Taylor said he wants City Council to be fully updated on the Master Plan to aid them in making long range decisions concerning the airport’s future. He explained major airport projects are, if approved, reimbursed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at 95% of the cost, the City paying the remaining five percent. City Council has not adopted a Master Plan in the past, and, said the Mayor, it is not required that it does. He desires a consensus of opinion from all concerned, the community, private individuals, businesses, on what Harry Clever Field should look like down the road. “Do we want to develop it or keep it a Mom and Pop field,” he asked. “At some time the FAA is going to require a decision as to what we are going to do with the airport and that will probably happen in the next five years when the runway needs resurfacing.”
Loretta Snyder, representative from Michael Baker, Jr. Associates, the consultants for the airport, stated that Clever Field is part of the national airport system which extends throughout the entire country. Businesses utilize smaller airports frequently and that is why almost every county has an airport.
Councilwoman Cox asked why the plan had to be approved when the Mayor previously stated that it did not have to be approved. She also questioned the number of options in the Plan and the effect of approving all of them rather than a single one.
Mr. Ted Gentsch, of Lauren Manufacturing, and a member of the Airport Commission, answered, stating, “The FAA requires you to look at every conceivable way of configuring the runway and expanding it, and the costs of expanding it and the impact on the community…and that you have done due diligence in expanding it at the current site. So, every alternative is outlined in there…The best alternative is Number 4, the next best alternative is a green field site.” He suggested, ‘If the number of alternatives is to great (seven), you can approve the Plan using only Option 4.
Cox asked why the Plan should be adopted when it contains two Alternatives which are “not recommended” and two that are “not practical,” to which Gentsch replied, “It’s a plan.”
Lautenschleger stated that the Master Plan is an overview of every possible scenario and doesn’t mean what’s going to be adopted or moved forward.
Cox replied that plans had been proposed in 2001 and 2004 which were not adopted because of removing of people’s homes and the cemetery. Lautenschleger said that the Plan was part of larger thinking and moving ahead in the future, and “If we don’t want to adopt any of this, then there are [other] scenarios. One, we could have public hearings and put this out here and have people review it and use their input. That’s not a bad thing as they can see everything that’s on there and then they can go back and maybe work on it some more. If you decide that you don’t want any growth at the airport,…then we should get that out on the table so the Airport Commission can understand and then they [may] decide to let the airport go. That’s an extreme scenario.”
A discussion between Lautenschleger and Cox ensued concerning removal of houses. Lautenschleger insisted that home removals was never discussed. He went on to say that such statements were scare tactics generated by unsigned letters being sent to residents in areas around the airport. (Ed: The letters in question are copies of the of the recent blog on this site, see New Philadelphia Airport Renovation, which were copied and sent without our knowledge.)
The Mayor stated that the Airport Commission has “no legal authority to move forward and pick an option, it has to be City Council.” He went on to say that he wants to get all the people concerned involved and make a decision about the airport which will decide its future. Cox stated her concern that there isn’t enough property at the present airport for expansion of needed hangers and other such improvements and suggested that the alternative of building another airport would be the most logical move.
Mr. Don Kennedy, a local realtor, asked if the FAA, in a past meeting, would not commit to a new airport as the cost would be in the range of 20-million dollars, but would commit to a new runway because they felt the option of a new airport was not feasible,. Mr Gentsh replied the FAA did not commit to anything. “If you read the Master Plan through to the end”, he said, “you’ll find that if you go through all the options, they say in there something to the effect…that you should consider a green field site. A green field site or a new airport would be the option for this community which would create the least amount of problems in terms of relocation, obstacles such as Schoenbrunn Park, that sort of thing. Getting everybody politically on the same page would be required, a champion, as the mayor mentioned, before that step could be made, and there are some sites which would be quite suitable in Tuscarawas County.” Gentsch went on to say that the FAA did not rule out a new airport but, when it was explored in the recent past, the political acceptance, county and municipalities, was not forthcoming.
Mr. Lautenschleger requested the Service Director, Mr. Zucal, to arrange a meeting with all interested parties in the near future to obtain concerns and comments concerning the Master Plan. The meeting closed with no action being taken and the matter of the property purchase from Mary Egli not discussed.
No comments:
Post a Comment