Valley News – Newport tries to avoid federal funds and requirements for airport maintenance

NORTH NEWPORT – The city’s Airport Advisory Board wants to avoid having to rely on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funds for long-needed repairs to the runway at the city-owned Parlin Field airport.

The board believes that keeping Parlin Field independent of the FAA and its long list of obligations will preserve the airport’s small, community feel and reduce costs, board member Russ Kelsea told the Selectboard at its meeting Monday.

Parlin Field, built in the 1930s, is not an FAA-required airport, meaning it has not accepted money from the federal agency for its maintenance. The city’s airport managers have long resisted accepting FAA money, fearing it would limit their opportunities, such as the annual Easter egg drop, as well as add requirements and costs.

Guy Rouelle, senior aviation project manager, opened Monday’s presentation of a recently completed master plan for the airport to the Selectboard by explaining the planning process. He pointed out that the FAA-approved 20-year forecast for the airport does not predict a large increase in operations and that Parlin Field will remain a “small general aviation airport.”

The plan included four alternatives, two of which required FAA funding with a city grant and a third that relied solely on state and city funding. The final option was to do nothing, but while rebuilding the runway would not incur any costs, the city would still be responsible for maintaining the dilapidated runway. Under the agreement with the hangar tenants, it is obligated to maintain a safe runway.

The option to use only state and city funds is estimated to cost $1.1 million. Assuming state funds are provided, the city’s share would be about $225,000, according to Jen Riccardi, deputy director of aviation at Dubois & King, who also presented to the Selectboard on Monday.

The current 3,448-foot runway will be rebuilt to 3,200 feet long. In addition to the full reconstruction, the southern end of the runway, which cannot be used at certain times of the year because of flooding and ice jams from the Sugar River, will be raised above the flood plain and a new, larger culvert will be installed. Kelsea said if nothing is done, the runway would actually be less than 2,900 feet long because of the flooding.

Kelsea said if the city accepts the federal funds, there could be federal requirements in the future and the city would have to spend the money to meet them. And the standards could change and become more stringent.

“We believe this is the lowest total cost to the city,” Kelsea told the Selectboard about the option without FAA funding.

Kelsea said the alternative recommended by the advisory panel would allow the city to retain full control of the airport, but that would not be the case with an airport subject to FAA oversight.

The preferred option “preserves that character of the airport and is consistent with the city’s hangar leases,” Kelsea said. “It maximizes the FAA’s design standards and, in our view, meets all applicable safety requirements.”

The two FAA-funded options, which cost between $9.5 million and $10 million and involve a 5 percent match from the city and state, respectively, would require a 240-foot-wide “safety area” at both ends of the runway, reducing the total length to less than 3,000 feet, Riccardi said.

Additionally, the FAA’s options would remove “obstacles” at both ends of the runway, which would require easements from property owners, and FAA-compliant lighting would need to be installed. Those are not part of the alternative, which relies only on state and local funding, but Kelsea pointed out that the city would need to maintain “safety zones” for aircraft. The FAA would also require the removal of the grass runway that runs perpendicular to the paved runway.

One of the FAA’s alternative plans is to move the entire runway north, away from the Sugar River. Riccardi said the additional costs due to environmental impacts and the removal of additional obstacles are not worth that option.

Given all the limitations of the property, Riccardi said, they could not design a 3,200-foot runway that would qualify for FAA funding.

If the city were to apply for state funds through the Airport Maintenance Grant program, it would submit an application later this year. If approved, construction could begin in late summer of next year. Under the FAA’s alternatives, the process would take at least three years before construction could begin.

The Selectboard did not make a decision Monday, and Chairman Jim Burroughs said there is still much discussion ahead about how to proceed and how the city’s share will be paid.

Patrick O’Grady can be reached at [email protected].