Alabama

Arizona

Illinois

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

New York

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming After reviewing these various systems, it was decided that rather than take one State's plan and modified to suit the needs of Vermont, it was more appropriate to create a new prioritization system based on all of these plans. The result of this review was the identification of a number of evaluation criteria for Vermont's Prioritization System. The preliminary criteria developed at this TAC meeting was used as the basis of the prioritization model,. This preliminary model was then presented to the general public in 23 meetings held at each publicly owned, public use airport. Based on comments received during these meetings, as well as comments offered up by the TAC and VAOT, the criteria were modified. The resulting final evaluation criteria are presented in the following Table:

VERMONT AIRPORT CAPITAL FACILITY PROGRAM

EVALUATION WORKSHEET DEFINITIONS (REVISED 2/28/00)

Acronyms: NPIAS (National Plan of Integrated Airport System) Code - FAA Airport Code which describes Activity Level of Airport

NAVAIDS - Navigation Aid ARFF - Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting

2.2 PROJECT EVALUATION WORKSHEETS.

One of the primary desires of VAOT was to create a project prioritization system that was easily understood by all parties who may wish to review the project rankings. To help facilitate this ease of review, a one page summary of each project evaluation was created. This worksheet concisely summarizes all pertinent information on the proposed project, including the airport location, a project description, cost, project duration, and the summarized evaluation sheet. A sample of this worksheet follows, as well as a blank worksheet. A detailed explanation of the evaluation process can be found in Section Five, Project Evaluation.

INSERT 2 BLANK WORKSHEETS

SECTION 3 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

3.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT APPROACH

As part of the Airport Capital Facility Program process, a significant effort was expended to present the program to the public, both for their information and to obtain their input on the program that VAOT was developing. To this end, a series of four rounds of public meetings were held in December 1998/January 1999; July, 1999; October, 1999; and December, 1999. With the exception of the last round of meetings, all public meetings were held at the 12 System Airports where space was available. For the Fair Haven Municipal and John H. Boylan State Airports, the meetings were held at the Fair Haven and Brighton Town Offices, and due to the large turn-out, the last public meeting for the Caledonia County State Airport was held at the Lyndon Town offices. The final round of public meetings consisted of three regional presentations at locations in Montpelier, St. Johnsbury, and Rutland. A total of 38 public informational meetings were held.

The intent of these public meetings was to maximize public involvement, and to make those groups associated with the various airports part of the decision-making process. Based on comments received throughout this study, it appears that this goal was successfully achieved.

3.1 MEETING SUMMARIES

3.1.1 First Public Meeting. To kick off the project, a series of inventory meetings were held at each of the 12 system airports between December 17, 1998 and January 7, 1999. Due to the timing of the meetings during the holiday season, attendance varied widely, however, positive and informative input was received at all meetings.

The meetings were composed of several elements:

• a review of the purpose of the Vermont Airport Capital Facility Program;
• a summary of the existing airport facility and operations;
• the definition of the airport role and usage, as perceived by the local and regional representatives;
• opportunities and hindrances for development at the airport; and
• the development of a facilities needs list.

The total number of meeting attendees were as follows:

Table 3-1

First Public Meeting Attendance

* Does not include VAOT staff or Consultants

While these meetings generally focused on an inventory of the airport facilities and an overview of the Airport Capital Facility Program, a wide variety of comments were also expressed at these meetings. Some of the more significant comments that were raised included:

• VAOT should consider setting money aside for land purchase. This would allow the airports the ability to purchase land that becomes available on the real estate market, without waiting for a lengthy appraisal process, or requiring the reallocation of funds for planned projects to take advantage of the narrow window of opportunity to purchase the property.
• Ground transportation signage is poorly located, inadequate, and inconsistent. A state-wide airport signage plan should be implemented.
• A regular schedule of pavement crack sealing and airfield striping should be established.
• A regular maintenance program for the state-owned hangars and terminal buildings should be established.
• A policy on funding projects at non-state, publicly owned, public use airports (i.e., Fair Haven Municipal and Burlington International) should be established. Current legislation allows VAOT to participate in FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) projects, but does not address funding other projects.
• A policy on VAOT funding of hangar facilities should be established. There is currently an informal policy against VAOT funding new hangar facilities.

3.1.2 Second Public Meeting. The second round of public meetings were once again held at each of the 12 system airports, between July 12 and July 23, 1999. The focus of these meetings was to update the public on the work completed to date, and to set the groundwork for the public involvement in the support elements of the project ranking model. The primary items of discussion were:

• Introductions and Overview of the Airport Capital Facility Program by a State Aviation Council Representative
• Progress to Date on the Program
• Draft Project Prioritization Model, and the Proposed Ranking Criteria
• Proposed Vermont Airport Classification System
• Draft Airport Development Standards
• Financial Overview
• Coordination with On-going Planning Studies
• Annual Updating Procedures
• Public Input and Support of the Plan

The total number of meeting attendees were as follows:Table 3-2

Second Public Meeting Attendance

* Does not include VAOT staff or Consultants

This second round of meetings generally had higher attendance then the first meeting, and many more comments were raised at these meetings, including the following:

• Coordination between VAOT and the airport is vital, since in the past airports felt that not enough coordination occurred.
• Recognition of the level of local support, compared to the surrounding population base, should be considered. For example, the 14 people attending the meeting at the John H. Boylan (Island Pond) State Airport should carry more weight for local support then a similar number of people attending a meeting in Rutland.
• The value and weight given for the economic impact of the airport and specific projects is low.
• Current funding under consideration by the US Senate could provide up to $200,000 annually to each state-owned airport in Vermont, but it is doubtful that the bill will pass the Senate intact, and the President has indicated that he will veto the bill if it separates the Aviation Trust Fund from the General Fund, as the current bill does.
• A participant requested that VAOT consider lack of funding in the past for projects at their airport, and also consider the considerable amount of work that volunteers have done in the past when VAOT has not provided the needed support.
• A participant asked why revenues generated at the airport are not available for use at their airport, rather than being sent back to VAOT for use at their discretion.
• No public announcement or legal notice was given for the meeting. For the next combined ALP Update/Airport Capital Facility Program meeting, an announcement will be placed in the local paper.
• The value and weight given for the type of project seems too high in comparison with the other criteria.
• The special program criteria should be removed.
• A participant in the meeting expressed concern with the scheduling of the meeting at 3:00 PM, rather then in the evening, and requested consideration be given to scheduling future meetings in the evening to increase attendance.
• A separate criteria evaluating the airport's economic significance should be added, in addition to the project specific economic impact.
• The question was raised as to why all the ranked projects were given a value of 0 under economic impact. It was explained that documentation from the airport must be provided to evaluate this criteria.
• Consideration should be given to comparing the project rankings with the estimated construction cost to see what impact this would have on the scores.
• The definition of a tourism destination needs to be created to properly evaluate this criteria.

3.1.3 Third Public Meeting. As with the previous two rounds, the third series of public meetings were once again held at the 12 system airports, between October 12 and October 29, 1999. There was one exception to this - the staff at the Burlington International Airport indicated that since their projects were not being evaluated under this program, and there had been little public interest, that they did not see the need of the third public meeting.

The focus of these meetings was to update the public on the work completed to date, to present the draft prioritized list of projects, and gather public support and comment on the program. The primary items of discussion were:

• Final Project Prioritization Model
• Overall Ranking of Projects for the State Airport System
• Specific Project Evaluations for Your Airport
• Financial and Implementation Plan
• Annual Project Updating Procedures

The total number of meeting attendees were as follows:

Table 3-3

Third Public Meeting Attendance

* Does not include VAOT staff or Consultants

This third round of meetings had fairly erratic attendance, with one meeting having only 1 individual attend, while another meeting had almost seventy people in attendance. These meetings focused much more on the rankings of the projects at the individual airport and the final modifications to the prioritization model, and therefore general discussion related to the process itself was fairly limited. Nonetheless, there were some more general comments that were discussed, including the following:

• How is the Legislature to use the prioritized list? The VAOT will utilize this list to suggest projects and funding levels for aviation, but the Legislature will ultimately vote money as it deems prudent.
• Cost does not seem to affect the ranking. Small projects are given preferential points but large projects are not differentiated by cost. The project ranking should give the VAOT a general idea of which projects to complete. Instead of funding projects sequentially the VAOT will fund projects from the top of the list before the projects on the bottom of the list are funded. The VAOT needs the flexibility to pick and choose projects. For example, if a runway rehabilitation cost $3,000,000, then one year's budget could be spent on one project. If the VAOT feels that a different source of funding may be available in the future this project would be put off, and projects lower in ranking would be funded first.
• How was airport activity determined? Five airports were monitored for the Airport Layout Plan updates and the remaining five were estimated from conversations with the local FBO, VAOT and the FAA. The VAOT is researching the possibility of purchasing devices to count aircraft traffic.
• Can a private group pursue permits? Yes, and it may shorten the project construction permitting process.
• Concerns were raised that criteria are not independent, and that removing the tourism criteria was regrettable.
• Complaints were lodged that people were not notified of the meeting. Mr. Churchill of Dufresne-Henry stated that notices were sent out to the airport representatives and that for the next meetings all persons that had attended in the past will be mailed a notification.
• Questions about whether private funding could be used to develop the airport. The answer from the State was yes.
• Most of the Airports ranked low in economic development and support. The airports must provide documentation to support raising point levels of projects. Points are awarded when documentation is received and reviewed.
• Funding levels for all the state airports is approximately $1,200,000 from the State and $750,000 from the FAA per year.
• Cost/Benefit Criteria 12 should include airplanes that would utilize the airport if a project was completed.
• Project support from the Chambers of Commerce, and the Regional and Town Planning Commissions are desirable

3.1.4 Final Public Meeting. The public involvement phase of this program concluded with three regional meetings held in December, 1999. These meeting were held in Montpelier, St. Johnsbury and Rutland. The intent of these meetings was to walk the audience through the complete development and implementation of the program. The agenda for this meeting was as follows:

• Program Background and Overview
• Overview of the Project Prioritization Model, and Detailed Discussion of the Evaluation Criteria
• 1999 Summary of the Ranking of 5-year Aviation Program
• 2000 Summary of the Ranking of 5-year Aviation Program
• Financial Overview
• Annual Updating Procedures

VAOT concluded these meetings with a charge to the local communities to undertake a concerted effort in early 2000 to gather and document local support for the airports and their associated projects, with the anticipation of the Airport Capital Facility Program being fully implemented in May of 2000.

The reader is directed to the technical appendix, where complete meeting minutes can be found.

SECTION 4 - AIRPORT CLASSIFICATION & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

4.0 INTRODUCTION

To assist VAOT in the determination of appropriate levels of development for the System Airports, the Consultant created standards which all airports should consider when evaluating their future facility needs. These standards are broken down into two primary categories - safety, which is generally addressed by FAA standards, and facility development, which is generally addressed by VAOT standards, as defined under this project. The Facility Development Standards are based on appropriate levels of facility improvements as determined by VAOT. Section 4.2 addresses the establishment of these standards. Preceding this section is a discussion on the classification of the Vermont Airport System. The FAA Safety Standards are nationally recognized guidelines, based exclusively on the design aircraft, which is defined by the largest aircraft which regularly uses the facility. Section 4.3 addresses the establishment of these standards.

4.1 AIRPORT CLASSIFICATION

Prior to creating appropriate development standards, it is necessary to define the role of the airport. Once this definition is complete, standards that are appropriate for the activity type and level at the airports can be defined. In a working meeting with the TAC on June 21, 1999, the classification system for the Vermont Airports was created. A review of this definition process follows:

4.1.1. Existing Airport Classification. While it is not currently used for development standards, the existing airport system was classified by VAOT in a study completed in 1973, and subsequently updated in 1983. This classification system was comprised of four types of airports - Air Carrier, Economic Development General Aviation Airports, Aviation Specialty Airports, and Other Public Landing Strips. Table 4-1 summarizes the classifications of the current public use airports in Vermont, with their associated definitions.

TABLE 4-1

1983 VERMONT AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN AIRPORT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC USE FACILITIES⁽¹⁾

4.1.2. FAA NPIAS Classification. The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) provides for five levels of classifications, including:

• Commercial Service Airports (Primary)
• Other Commercial Service Airports (Non-Primary)
• Reliever Airports
• General Aviation Airports
• Non-NPIAS Airports

The NPIAS is tied into both the activity level of the airport {Commercial Service Airports (Primary) and Other Commercial Service Airports (Non-Primary)} and the airport's functional role {Reliever Airports and General Aviation Airports}. However, the NPIAS does not give the definition of the smaller, general aviation airports that comprise the majority (11 of the 12 airports) of the Vermont Airport System.

4.1.3. Other State Airport Classifications. In addition to the FAA's NPIAS classifications, and VAOT's existing classification system, other classification systems from various states were reviewed. A brief summary of the distinctives used, along with comments on their applicability to Vermont, are as follows:

• Facility Type (Airport, Heliport, Seaport)

• Comments - All aviation facilities considered under the Vermont Airport Capital Facility Program (VACFP) are Airports.

• Facility Use (Public, Private)

• Comments - All aviation facilities considered under the VACFP are Public Use Facilities.

• Service Population

• Comments - Service population is already considered under the project ranking criteria.

• Planning Regions

• Comments - Planning regions do not necessarily distinguish airport classifications and roles, as is desired under the VACFP.

• Airport Class (Airport Reference Code) Categories

• Comments - Airport class categories are useful in defining FAA safety and planning criteria.

4.1.4. Recommended Vermont State Airport Classification. After a review of the various classification systems used by other states, the TAC elected to use a two-tiered classification system, which incorporates a facility use descriptor (the airport role or function) and the FAA's facility classification, which is otherwise known as the Airport Reference Code. The facility use descriptor will generally define the development standards, whereas the Airport Reference Code (ARC) will generally define the FAA required safety standards. A detailed discussion of these descriptors follows.

4.1.4.1 - Facility Use. The facility use descriptors that were established for Vermont are:

• Commercial Service - The basis of airport activity is developed around providing services for operations with scheduled passenger service. This service could be attributed to a single commuter flight or hundreds of daily airline flights.

• General Aviation - The airport bases its activities and operations upon general aviation use, which typically incorporates services for personal flying and/or business flying. Airport activity would involve the provision of services for flight activities such as corporate flights, charter activity, recreational flying, sight seeing, flight lessons, etc.

• Aviation Specialty - The activity in this category typically involves a small niche of flight service such as aerobatic lessons, flying clubs, seasonal operators, experimental aircraft support, parachuting, ultralights, gliding, etc.

Table 4-2 shows each of the Vermont system airports and their associated facility use classifications.