WATERBURY-OXFORD AIRPORT (OXC) FAR PART 150 NOISE STUDY Public Information Meeting #3 June 20, 2007 7:00 p.m. Southbury Crowne Plaza Meeting Report Purpose: A Public Information Meeting (PIM) was held to discuss the draft recommendations of the OXC Noise Study. The draft recommendations are presented in Working Paper No. 3 of the Noise Study (Draft Noise Compatibility Program). Working Paper No. 3 was made available for public review and comment, on the study website (www.oxcstudies.com) and at municipal libraries approximately two weeks prior to the PIM. Comments on the draft recommendations will be accepted until July 20, 2007 – revisions may be considered after that time. Study Team Attendees: NAME AFFILIATION Matthew Kelly ConnDOT - OXC Manager David Head ConnDOT - Bureau of Policy & Planning Carmine Trotta ConnDOT - Bureau of Policy & Planning Diane Bray ConnDOT - Bureau of Policy & Planning Kurt Walton ConnDOT - Bureau of Policy & Planning Robert Bruno ConnDOT - Bureau of Aviation & Ports James Mason ConnDOT - Office of Rights of Way Derrick Ireland ConnDOT - Office of Rights of Way Paul McDonnell Clough Harbour & Associates LLP Michael Kotlow Clough Harbour & Associates LLP Rob Adams Landrum & Brown Debbie Price Program Support Services Nearly 100 representatives of the general public attended, including several Advisory Committee (AC) members, local citizens, and the media (see attached sign-in sheets). Presentation: The PIM presentation is available online at www.oxcstudies.com/meetings – the same presentation was discussed at AC Meeting #6 (June 13, 2007). Please refer to the minutes from AC Meeting #6 for a summary of the presentation. This meeting also included a presentation by two representatives from the ConnDOT Office of Rights of Way – Messrs. James Mason and Derrick Ireland. They discussed the Voluntary Acquisition Process as it applies to the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. If voluntary acquisition is pursued, certified appraisers would use comparable housing values outside the immediate project area to determine Fair Market Value (FMV), so that any “stigma” caused by the announcement of the project would not affect the FMV. The FMV appraisal would consider the fact that the homes are currently located near OXC, but as if the Noise Study was never conducted. A ConnDOT Rights of Way Officer would then present the homeowner with an invitation to sell, at which time the homeowner may present any evidence to justify additional payment. Advisory assistance would be provided to those who choose to participate in the acquisition. This identifies specific programs/organizations that can assist homeowners with any special needs or requirements (e.g., disabilities). Monetary benefits would be paid for moving expenses within 50 miles – homeowners would be required to cover any additional costs if they wish to relocate more than 50 miles. The FMV would also include a replacement housing payment to provide additional money for a “functionally equivalent” home, to be determined on a case by case basis. A mortgage differential payment would also be offered to homeowners. This would cover any increased interest payments a homeowner may have to pay for a new mortgage versus the mortgage on their current home. All closing costs, attorney fees, and inspections would be paid for under the program. Summary of Comments: A speaker sign-in sheet is attached to the end of this document. Comment #1 – Robert Marzinotto stated that if he wanted to sell his home now, it would not be worthwhile because the Noise Study and local media have caused property values to “significantly” decline in the Triangle Hills neighborhood. Shouldn’t the State be responsible for purchasing our homes now rather than make us wait several years? Response #1 – James Mason explained that with any announcement of a project, there can be a “cloud” or “stigma” attached to the affected area which may impact property values. The negative impact to property values is considered in the property appraisal, as if the project announcement never occurred. However, this does not affect the timing of acquisition, which is primarily dependent on funding availability from the FAA – the State of Connecticut would not assume the entire costs for acquisition. A precise timeframe for funding and acquisition is undeterminable at this time – ConnDOT is working to minimize the acquisition schedule. Comment #2 – Debbie Palladino: A) If I have to relocate prior to being offered an invitation to sell (e.g., job relocates), would I be reimbursed for the negative impact to my property value that has been caused by the “stigma” of the Noise Study? B) In regards to the Mortgage Differential Payment, if I don’t have a mortgage, would this just be money in my pocket? Response #2 – A) James Mason explained that there is always an intermediate period before acquisitions can begin. Unfortunately, ConnDOT does not have the ability to acquire homes or reimburse for the loss of value prior to the start of the acquisition program. Once the program is in place, individual circumstances may be considered when determining the timing of purchase offers. B) If you do not currently have a mortgage, you would not be eligible for a differential payment, as it is anticipated that you would receive enough money to purchase a comparable home without having to take on a mortgage. Comment #3 – Claire and Phil France: A) This would not be a voluntary acquisition program, as individuals who wish to stay would wind up surrounded by empty homes. B) Is there any guarantee that the FAA would fully fund the acquisition program? Response #3 – A) Paul McDonnell explained that the acquired homes would be demolished and the lots would be maintained as open grassy fields or rural treed areas. B) John Silva stated that the FAA has historically well funded Noise Implementation Programs, and this is expected for the foreseeable future (15% of the FAA’s budget is reserved for Noise Implementation Programs). He also indicated that a new federal funding authorization is pending Congressional action and the precise outcome is currently not known. Comment #4 – Paul Lavallee: A) Did you provide a response to our comments from the last PIM (November 29, 2006)? B) Would homeowners be reimbursed for the “stigma” of Fair Disclosure attached to their property? C) The budget in the Airport Master Plan Update (AMPU) Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) is not adequate for the proposed acquisition program. D) The acquisition program needs to move forward as quickly as possible. Can the State hire more people to speed things up? E) The State should consider purchasing avigation easements for affected property owners. This may help to recoup some of the lost property value. Response #4 – A) A summary of the PIM comments and responses is provided in Appendix D of the Noise Study, which is available online at www.oxcstudies.com. B) No compensation would be provided to homeowners if Fair Disclosure is implemented. C) The numbers in the AMPU ACIP are placeholders, and do not represent the anticipated funding. The AMPU was completed in 2006, prior to the Noise Study recommendations. The numbers in the ACIP on file with ConnDOT will be updated upon approval of the Noise Study. D) The State is looking to hire a consultant to conduct the separate Implementation Plan Study, and is working to move things forward as quickly as possible. E) John Silva explained that avigation easements are typically unpopular, as they essentially purchase the right to cause noise disturbance. They do not provide an effective solution to the problems associated with incompatible noise exposure. Comment #5 – Ron Brandes: A) Who owns OXC? B) Would the acquired properties become “airport property?” Could the properties ever be developed for airport purposes (e.g., runway extension, hangars)? C) Wouldn’t the town’s tax base be affected by the loss of taxable properties? Would any compensation be provided to the towns for the potential loss of taxable properties? Response #5 – A) The State of Connecticut Department of Transportation owns OXC. B) The State needs legislative approval before a property can be deemed “airport property.” Thus, depending if legislative approval is pursued or granted, the acquired properties could either be considered State or airport property. David Head stated that the acquired properties would not be developed for airport purposes (e.g., runway extension, hangars). C) No, the program does not compensate towns for changes to the tax base. John Silva explained that from his experience, taking residential properties off the tax rolls often winds up saving towns money in the long term. Comment #6 – Joseph Olender: A) Why do you recommend displacing an entire neighborhood for “community cohesion” purposes? B) How much money is the State likely to give me for my home? C) Why does the State really want to displace us? Response #6 – A) The majority of the Triangle Hills neighborhood is exposed to incompatible noise levels. Rather than only offering voluntary acquisition to some residents but not others, the FAA typically authorizes the acquisition of nearby homes so as to make the program as fair and inclusive as possible. B) See the summary of James Mason’s presentation above. C) The Noise Study was conducted because residents of the surrounding communities were seeking an improved quality of life. The Noise Study attempts to recommend measures that would ultimately provide an improved quality of life for surrounding residents. There will be no development on the property acquired for noise purposes. Comment #7 – Mark McKinney: A) I live well outside the 60 DNL contour, but why do I have to stop talking to people on the phone when a plane flies over my house? B) Can’t the airport be shut down at night? Response #7 – A) Comment noted. The Noise Study Appendix A illustrates the peak noise levels in various locations close and far from OXC. B) OXC is a public use airport that must remain open 24 hours a day. Closing the airport at night would violate FAA Grant Obligations. ConnDOT does not have the authority to close or restrict public use of the airport. Comment #8 – David Reed questioned the accuracy of the jet operations forecasts. Response #8 – Paul McDonnell explained that when the jet operations forecasts were developed, they accounted for a significant amount of new hangar development within the next few years. The forecasts were recently compared to year 2006 operations levels, and the number of actual operations is close to the forecast. The Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) contours will be updated to reflect the most recent full year of activity at OXC (2006), and will also depict future forecast contours to make sure that everybody is covered by the program that may be impacted in the coming years. Comment #9 – Tammie Fiske: A) Why aren’t you considering shifting the runway towards Oxford to remove the Triangle Hills neighborhood from incompatible noise levels? B) Isn’t the Triangle Hills neighborhood located in the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)? C) Can the State prevent noisier jets from flying into OXC? Can the State fine them? D) Why isn’t the Air Traffic Control Tower open 24 hours a day? Response #9 – A) The study team did investigate shifting the runway southerly as a potential method for reducing incompatible noise levels; however, due to several factors (steep terrain, property availability, wetlands and floodplains, Larkin State Trail, electrical transmission lines, and cost), it was determined that this was not a viable option. B) Yes, 31 homes in the Triangle Hills neighborhood are located within the RPZ. The RPZ is a defined area beyond each runway end. For land use compatibility, noise, and safety reasons, the FAA considers homes to be an incompatible land use within RPZs. In portions of RPZs that are controlled (i.e., owned) by an airport, homes and places of public assembly are prohibited. In portions of RPZs that are not controlled by an airport, the land use standards have recommendation status (see FAA Advisory Circular 150-5300-13, Airport Design, Paragraph 212.C.). The FAA recommends that airports acquire homes within RPZs if they are available. C) OXC must remain available at all times because it is a public use airport that has received federal grants. Federal regulations prevent the state from excluding noisier aircraft under 75,000 pounds or establishing other restrictions. Mandatory flight restrictions, fines, and curfews cannot be implemented unless a detailed FAR Part 161 Study is prepared and approved. A Part 161 Study evaluates the economic benefits and costs associated with implementing flight restrictions at a public-use airport. In order for the FAA to approve a Part 161 Study, it must be determined that the economic benefits of implementing flight restrictions (e.g., reduced property insulation/acquisition costs) outweigh the economic costs (e.g., loss of commerce), and that noise impacts cannot otherwise be mitigated. In addition, hushkitting cannot be required for general aviation aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds. To date, no FAR Part 161 Studies have been approved by the FAA. These types of studies typically cost several million dollars to conduct. D) Operations levels determine the hours which the FAA is willing to fund staffing for control towers. The operations levels at OXC are not close to meeting the requirements for 24 hour staffing. Comment #10 – David Rykoski stated that he lives two miles from OXC, but is constantly bombarded by aircraft takeoff and landings. What can you do to keep aircraft on their defined flight paths? Response #10 – Currently, airspace handoffs between New York and Bradley cause varied aircraft arrival and departure tracks within the vicinity of OXC. Draft NCP Measure NA-1 attempts to standardize departure flight tracks through the implementation of Area Navigation (RNAV) overlay procedures using Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment. RNAV involves flying predefined departure paths (GPS-guided) that are designed to reduce flyovers of residential areas. Comment #11 – Did you investigate moving the airport completely? You have $60+ million worth of improvements listed in the AMPU ACIP, plus the $25 million for acquisition – couldn’t that pay for a completely new airport somewhere in the open areas of Oxford? Response #11 – No investigation of moving the airport was conducted. Comment noted. Comment #12 – Margaret Belden: A) Can something be done about aircraft that climb excessively? B) Can the height of aircraft approaching Runway 18 be controlled? It seems like they are flying very close to the ground. Response #12 – A) Matt Kelly stated that he has spoken to pilots about climbing excessively – most of them have discontinued this practice. B) Paul McDonnell explained that although pilots should be maintaining a specific altitude during approaches, there is currently no vertical approach guidance to Runway 18 (e.g., ground based equipment). Runway 36 is currently equipped with a Visual Glide Slope Indicator (VGSI), which provides visual cues to all pilots as to whether they are at the correct elevation and approach slope to the runway. The AMPU recommendations include a VGSI for Runway 18. Comment #13 – Ray Pietrorazio asked whether the environmental analysis could be conducted concurrently with the Implementation Plan Study. Response #13 – Yes, the environmental analysis could be conducted concurrently with the Implementation Plan Study. Comment #14 – If voluntary acquisition is pursued, who would maintain the vacant lots? Who would maintain/plow the road? Response #14 – These questions would be considered in the separate Implementation Plan Study. However, it is believed that the lots would be maintained by the State, and the road maintenance would either be carried out by the town or the State, depending upon several factors. Comment #15 – When will the Public Hearing be held? Response #15 – It is anticipated that the Public Hearing will be held in the fall of this year (2007). Comment #16 – Have you taken a poll of the Triangle Hills neighborhood to see how many people want to leave and how many want to stay? Response #16 – No poll has been conducted. From the comments we have received, several residents wish to leave as soon as possible, while others do not wish to leave at all. Comment #17 – Bill Gaynor: A) Would the environmental study consider air quality impacts associated with implementing Runway 18 as the preferential nighttime use runway? B) If voluntary acquisition is pursued, could any of the homes become low income housing? Response #17 – A) John Silva stated that air quality impacts would be considered in the evaluation, but would not likely be a “significant” impact. The level of activity at OXC does not warrant the need to conduct an air quality analysis for aircraft operations alone. B) None of the acquired homes could become low income housing; they would be removed (per the draft recommendation). Comment #18 – Pat Salvarezza stated that the stories in the local newspapers have hurt property values in the Triangle Hills neighborhood. Response #18 – Comment noted. Comment #19 – Scott Jewell asked if new improvements to his home would be considered in the appraisal of Fair Market Value (FMV). Response #19 – Yes, any improvements would be considered in the appraisal of FMV. Please keep all records of improvements to your home so they may be considered in your appraisal. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.