HomeMy WebLinkAbout940085.tiff- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
RESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE "NW" ALTERNATIVE (NORTHWEST-SOUTHEAST PRIMARY RUNWAY) FOR THE
GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado,
pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested
with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has been presented with the
Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan Update Study, detailing three principal
alternatives for runway alignment, a copy of which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing concurrent
with the Greeley City Council on the 11th day of January, 1994, at the hour of
7:00 p.m. , in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of hearing testimony
regarding the Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has studied the Greeley-Weld
County Airport Master Plan Update Study, the recommendation of the Greeley-Weld
County Airport Authority Board, and all of the exhibits and evidence presented
in this matter and, having heard all of the testimony and statements of those
present, deems it advisable to approve the "NW" Alternative (Northwest-Southeast
Primary Runway) for the Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the "NW" Alternative (Northwest-Southeast Primary Runway)
for the Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan be, and hereby is, approved.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded,
adopted by the following vote on the 11th day of January, A.D. , 1994.
A / I /// , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: v V ,L
Y4 /
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
v'`'w' "-JT /'
Weld County Clerk to the Board ��//', �/����r, ,'
%��/ Webster; Ch rman
BY: 4/ t#)--,4 �r
Deputy Clerrkk o the Board Da/e K. Hall, pro-Te
AP AS TO FORM: "^ fTt
G E. Baxter W.
County Attorney Constance L. Harbert
, Barbara J. Kirkme er
940085
/413000 (a CC . - . 'rr, N
HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 94-11
RE: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT MASTER
PLAN
A public hearing was conducted on January 11, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. , with the
following present:
Commissioner W. H. Webster, Chairman
Commissioner Dale K. Hall, Pro-Tem
Commissioner George E. Baxter
Commissioner Constance L. Harbert
Commissioner Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Carol Harding
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald Warden
The Greeley City Council conducted a special meeting concurrent to Weld
County's hearing. Present for the City of Greeley:
Mayor Willie Morton
Councilmember Charles Archibeque
Councilmember Nancy Brigden
Councilmember Lea Faulkner
Councilmember Tom Selders
Councilmember Ruth Slomer
City Manager, Paul Grattet
City Attorney, Rick Brady
City Clerk, Betsy Holder
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated December 22, 1993, and
duly published December 30, 1993, in the Windsor Beacon, a public hearing
was conducted, concurrent to a special meeting of the Greeley City
Council, to consider the Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan. Bruce
Barker, County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Chairman Webster
reviewed the procedure that would be followed and stated public comments
would be allowed after Kevin Bunnell, Airport Manager, completed his
presentation. Mr. Bunnell introduced Neil Rood, Isbill Associates, Inc. ,
who reviewed the history of the Master Plan from the early 1970's to the
present time. Mr. Rood discussed the Master Plan Update Study prepared by
his firm and highlighted Table I, "National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems"; Table II, "Colorado Aviation System Plan"; and Table III, "FAA
Recommended Runway Lengths". Mr. Rood reviewed the three alternatives
included in the Update Study and the advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative and stated the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority Board
approved the "NW" Alternative based on these benefits: no dwelling unit
relocations are required; the best wind coverage is obtained; construction
of runway 16/34 could be staged to minimize closure of runway 9/27, and
runway 17/35 could operate without interruption; the Coors water injection
well would not be disturbed; the existing north-south and east-west
traffic patterns would continue; all current and projected capability and
capacity demands for the foreseeable future would be met; and this is the
most cost-effective alternative considered. Rick Coulson, who owns
property at the end of the proposed runway, expressed his concerns that
the airport is outdated and will not meet the demands required by the
users. He pointed out there is only one access road to the airport, and
Bliss Road would end up becoming a tunnel. He feels this alternative will
not meet future demands. Ann Garrison, Professor of Economics at the
University of Northern Colorado, explained she did an impact analysis for
Mr. Bunnell last year which did not include Fixed Base Operators. She
940085
_/4 Paoc
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
PAGE 2
reviewed her projections for income, production, and added value, and she
spoke of the impact on employment, Fixed Base Operator's spending, and the
benefit to be gained by the County. She also spoke of the improvement to
the physical infrastructure of the County with this Master Plan in
process. Loyal Kelsey, Director of Aims Flight Training Center, explained
enrollment is up 15% and they presently have 100 pilots in the program.
He endorsed the new alternative and spoke about benefits of safety,
efficiency, and cost effectiveness. Bob Kelly, an airport user, agreed
with Ms. Garrison that the airport is doing well; however, he feels this
is not a good plan. He believes it should be a 20-year plan and safety
should be more of an issue. He said only 700 feet separate students who
are landing or taking off in one direction, from the jets which are
landing or taking off in a different direction. Mr. Kelly expressed
further concerns about the projected cost being too low, expenses not
included in the estimate, and the economic projections being too
favorable. He disagreed strongly with the need for a control tower and
stated he will move if it is built. In response to Councilmember
Faulkner, Mr. Kelly stated the tower would be a detriment because many
planes are without radios and those individuals do not want someone else
telling them how to fly. He stated general aviation flyers would rather
not have a control tower. J. R. Miller, area landowner, expressed his
disagreement because of the loss of rich, prime agricultural land. He
questioned whether adequate plans have been made to pay for maintenance
and operation of the new facility. Mr. Miller responded to Mayor Morton
that the public has not had access to the specific plans; therefore, it is
not known exactly how much land will be lost. Bob Anderson, airport user
and past board member of the airport, stated he is in support of said
Master Plan. He agreed with the student runway being on the west end and
spoke of the cleanup necessary to the 8th Street corridor, as well as the
potential for building a first-class industrial site with proper planning.
Kay Kosmicki, Visitor's and Convention Bureau, spoke in favor of the
Master Plan and discussed the advantages on a regional basis. Richard
Dendor and Jo Hause were also in favor of the plan. David Todd, President
of the Greeley Chamber of Commerce, stated the airport is now at 93%
capacity, and the governing bodies must look at expansion. He discussed
the businesses making inquiries through EDAP and stated 15 requests have
been handled concerning relocation of businesses at the airport. He
stated two companies, with employees of 50 or more, did not come back due
to the short length of the runway. Mr. Todd supported the "NW"
Alternative and discussed the economic advantage of the construction and
support costs of operating the newer facilities. Bill Argo, EDAP
President, agreed with Mr. Todd and voiced the existing inadequacies of
the airport as mentioned to him by companies considering relocation.
Mayor Morton asked if any new companies are waiting for the outcome of
tonight's action by the Board and City Council. Mr. Argo stated there are
two companies from California considering Greeley as a possible location
if this is approved. Dewey Zabka, area landowner, agreed with Mr. Miller
that it is a shame to lose prime agricultural land and felt more
consideration should be given to relocating the airport to another area.
In response to Councilmember Selders, Mr. Zabka said he is unable to
estimate the amount of farmland that will be affected. Wayne Howard
expressed his opinion that many high-cost items were overlooked to make
the cost appear more reasonable. Bud Clemons, airport user for 25 years,
spoke of the necessity for a control tower and stated there is a disaster
waiting to happen without one, since this is the third busiest airport in
the State. He stated it is a hazard to fly in and out without a control
tower, due to the traffic pattern. Mr. Clemons expressed the hope that
more attention will be given to enhancements for the user. Mayor Morton
verified Mr. Clemons feels a control tower is necessary whether or not
anything else is added to the facility. Councilmember Faulkner mentioned
that to support the tower, a larger facility is necessary. Mr. Clemons
responded the upgrade will attract users. George Hall, former Mayor of
Greeley, spoke in support of the Master Plan as approved by the Airport
940085
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
PAGE 3
Authority Board. He stated a new airport will not be approved by the FAA,
although an expansion will be considered for approval. He discussed
vehicular access; industrial sites available in the vicinity; and the use
of prime agricultural land, which is a concern but sometimes is necessary.
He pointed out that technical problems have solutions and asked the Board
and the Council to trust the experts and allow them to do their jobs,
which includes knowing and including details such as how thick the asphalt
should be on the runway. Mayor Morton reviewed the process the City
Council followed in looking at other locations for the airport. He said
they considered the Windsor area, as well as the Loveland and Fort Collins
area; however, the governing boards were absolutely not interested and the
FAA would not even consider approval without their consent. He mentioned
all the benefits of the "NW" Alternative and spoke of an additional
benefit being the hospital becoming a regional treatment center with the
airport upgrade. Mr. Hall briefly commented on the search in 1977 for a
new site and stated the oil and gas wells are a major problem since they
are everywhere in the County. Ken Harris, Harris Aviation, stated he
concurs with Bob Kelly and Bud Clemons. He questioned how snow removal,
which is a problem now, will be handled for a larger facility. Tom Ross,
who lives on the south side of 16th Street, expressed his concerns that
citizens in the surrounding area were not properly notified of specific
plans presented to the Airport Authority Board in time to make comments.
He also warned against rising and unforeseen maintenance costs. Jerry
Winters, surrounding property owner, commented on the safety, noise and
air pollution if jets are allowed to fly over Greeley, and he endorsed the
"NW" Alternative as the most economic of the three. Chuck Achziger stated
concerns about the need for a 10,000-foot runway, a fire station, a tower,
and the expansion of 8th Street, as well as all the other costs that have
not yet been added.
Let the record reflect a recess was taken at this time.
Upon reconvening, Mr. Bunnell presented a letter from Richard H. Stenner,
President of North Colorado Medical Center, supporting the further
development of the airport. Mr. Stenner stated in his letter that the
hospital's affiliation with Lutheran Health Systems of Fargo, North
Dakota, may create future needs. He also said the regionalization of
health care services may expand the types and amount of clinics offered,
the number of patient referrals, and the number of meetings involving
personnel from different areas, which would directly affect the number of
flights in and out of the airport. Chairman Webster closed public
testimony at this time. Mr. Bunnell and Mr. Rood responded to the
concerns raised by the individuals who spoke at this hearing. Mr. Rood
stated tonight's focus is to accommodate the runway development and
clarify which direction future expansion should go. He reminded the Board
and the Council that other problems will be addressed in the final plan.
He stated there are 354 acres of land for acquisitionfigured into the
final plan. Since the primary responsibility of the FAA is safety, and
the FAA has given preliminary approval to this plan, it should be apparent
that safety concerns are met by this plan. Mr. Rood also pointed out it
is the FAA who monitors airport usage, and it is the FAA who will decide
if and when a tower is necessary. Don Warden, Weld County Director of
Finance and Administration, responded to Commissioner Harbert that the
County has approximately $115,000 to $120,000 in reserves for removal of
the fuel tank. Councilmember Brigden discussed the possibility of phasing
the various improvements to allow better financing alternatives. Mr.
Bunnell stated it is possible some State discretionary grant funds would
be available to assist the City with funding. Mayor Morton reiterated the
Council is approving the Master Plan, not agreeing to final costs. He
stated another public hearing will be held and he would like the final
costs for items such as the thickness of the runways before final approval
is granted. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Rood stated the
FAA approval for upfront environmental assessment costs will be granted
940085
RE: HEARING CERTIFICATION - AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
PAGE 4 -
when the airport layout plan is approved. In response to Commissioner
Webster, Mr. Rood stated over one million dollars is planned for
acquisition of land. Mr. Bunnell responded to Commissioner Baxter that
there would be approximately $5,200 of additional annual maintenance costs
and explained how he thinks those costs will be met. Mr. Bunnell
explained to Commissioner Kirkmeyer the method used to obtain the counts
of takeoffs and landings and responded to the charge that the Master Plan
has not been available for the general public to review. Mr. Bunnell
stated the finer details are not answered until the entire Master Plan is
completed in detail. Commissioner Harbert stated the cost, as estimated
at this point, is typical of construction costs for a first proposal and
the major points discussed three to four years ago seem to have been
answered. Following the vote of City Council to accept the Master Plan,
Commissioner Harbert moved to approve the preliminary Greeley-Weld County
Airport Master Plan, as presented. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
This Certification was approved on the 12th day of January, 1994.
APPROVED:
ATTEST: G ,'( t BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
,'G),:‘ /V /t1/ .<2-4,-(in WELD COUNTY, goLORADO
Weld County Clerk to the B and � � F I
Gt
Deputy Clerk -;o/fie Board :41)47>z7-71-7
W H. Webster hai man
I J
Dale Hall, - em
TAPE #94-03
Geor E. Baxter
DOCKET #94-11 / lk‘
Constance L. Harbert
AP0006 / /. / 1(11 /
Barbara J. Kirkmey
940085
GREELEY CONVENTION &VISITORS BUREAU
GREELEY,COLORADO
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE GREELEY/WELD COUNTY AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN FOR RUNWAY EXPANSION.
WHEREAS, the Greeley/Weld County Airport has included in it's
Master Plan, expansion of runway facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Greeley/Weld County Airport is vital to the
economic well being of the City of Greeley and Weld County,
Colorado, and as general aviation is an essential part of our •
transportation system and contributes to manufacturing/business,
it's importance is relevant as a visitor access to the area and use
for aviation related conferences, seminars, fly-ins and special
events.
WHEREAS, expansion is recommended NOW to maintain safety
and efficiency to residents, businesses and visitors and the Airports
ability to participate in a shared cost approach with the FM, as the
Greeley/Weld County Airport is a high priority on the FAA's list to
receive monies for expansion. If action is not taken now these
dollars will be diverted to another airport and local plans would be
delayed and future cost are sure to increase.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GREELEY CONVENTION
&VISITORS BUREAU OF GREELEY, COLORADO:
Section 1 . The Greeley Convention & Visitors Bureau supports
the request of the Greeley/Weld County Airport Master Plan runway
expansion plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 6th day of
January, 1994.
PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
GREEL CONVENTION &VISITORS BUREAU
Lo raden
940085
ZONE DISTRICTS
A (Agricultural)
E (Estate) Hill II
Residential (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5)
Commercial (C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4)
Industrial (I-1, I-2, I-3) \\\\\\
PUD (Planned Unit Development) j
Incorporated Municipality
NOTE: OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Overlay Zoning Districts which impose additional
restrictions on the uses allowed within the Zoning
Districts listed below are not shown on this map.
These Overlay Zoning Districts have been officially
adopted by the Board of Weld County Commissioners
and are on file with the Weld County Clerk and
Recorder.
For information concerning these Overlay Zoning
Districts contact:
Department of Planning Services
Weld County Administrative Offices
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
940085
11
I •!I r� r4-1 m� Q P�
CIti
arSr�r P-or B`iii. CV
® ® ® ® -.• CO a
.�. I —
i r' 51 ® ❑
Cif
_i a ���is��r� 4
® � o3- rfa
A * )1') fti *
Is
" Leli—
t CI
„�ff
\l 4 �, T EIT CSC
i 8 3; '
' ❑ dS � M i • `ti i 0�'
Y �. n D9 i; CO N
rn[75 QD
a. _
tO
1 \\*..- li Ell Li .5-7,orclut al
insomur
inuir
��i T
Pr) I X >;; i�
O f in
s
I
CT -t 00 '% w �. t I A.
1 al AP�', C N\ f IM
tis< f/ `-!'"<<a'x�•\r'5�:+. y re) PO • 4s ., { r � ' , 1
.I.
a
t �!r , {may
:::.•••'
v4eca r v af` L- Jy� •JYT. P q>x¢s. al.i •t�
I� VS `$ o..n
I: ".mil(► late ' f.-4 ;w ,•F ".w i
Ei
{ r
{��,{�.},{{{_}�}f .t - S ! Y + y �'(`AYE � ':�!£4 "t� <
. 1f.f.. T'/ s.. y t t L 5+. 4...'taw' Y ." .. C^C,A,.4%*Q y'f`114;
` 4 ll.
I.
n . : :SCI � / �,/di fi zs' rxa't riik e.. �� Q- KY yt ,f t:gos � l'rc-t J r#re
�.orff �� �I'r[e1:% ..� $I.�a `Sc'�r.��i5 f� ff�;d+}b ta�� � 9�a.�� ..r�Nf .y. Y 5�, . �:s`
s ..-strY,...,,,,-÷7-4r—,442-,1
j " n . +c'�� ', n3 ��a��,�`�i.� 'm'*x F� c z..H,.,3r�..2 r��y��t�w=."".cv # s ..c w.� i
o ► j�I (�i `i.a r gym« _ g c�p 4n ,„.,.. < i4..„„:0 ,41 a ,,,r.N G Y a w - 743s-'
Sa�j Di �� w �` au,:e41 1 t �A Yin i r4.4,:r.�� '�,, slEaya„:/ �` ^a't ro- +2"Yr�w.
< c , ,•y3 . Iv .> Fi 3 r T S` (
t s•,KS''•, {xiysP' Sg T z'+4yn1.lY " '2 ,,,,,,,,,,:.4,,„,,,"rf �✓a`fit °f '
w vi Piiq ₹ s I . wu1K rvir}PYe� my pi
-, -•Y r 9r , •�•. ay`P' / 0„„„7.5t14.1.4a3 r
.t 1pp yh l d s.4 . 4 a, 1; N tit `�Cx �` x �' s3 w
t.'r.. ._ .,: >4 A,. , LA':a Tyr Pz wy. -. -.• 'afird. a iaF3 "" ,b..r `3"°T�'' > ‘re iN!u .fir.1/4:'‘‘‘1.1.*?.
January 9 1994
To: County Commissioners, City Council Members, and Aispirt'Author ty F and
Members;
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I would ask that you vote no on the proposed Greeley- Weld County Airport
runway expansion for the following reasons;
I have lived at 2222 E 16 street, which is just south of the airport, since
1957 when the airport operation consisted of a small number of crop dusters
and a handful of private single engine planes. Since that time it has grown,
and some of the growth has brought with it some annoying noise pollution.
A case in point, was the operation of the Emery Helicopter School during the
1980 s, when almost daily, the helicopters hovered over our yards and homes at
times, preventing any conversation on the patio or in the yard due to the
noise. No amount of complaint did any good.
Those of us with homes in this area, and the majority having been here for 30
years, dread the thought of increased noise and traffic of more and larger
planes as the runways would thus allow.
The Loveland- Ft. Collins regional airport just minutes away from west Greeley
serves the area well and can handle air traffic without endangering residential
areas as is the case at Greeley- Weld County.
This airport can be reached as easily from west Greeley, a matter of 25 minutes
driving time, as can the Weld County airport. It requires almost 25 minutes to
drive from west Greeley to 2 miles east of Greeley.
Please consider a NO decision. Thank you.
Respecettjlly yours,
`Rai C. ohhson
2222 E 16 st.
Greeley Colo 80631 325-1950
940055
ke--_ Lsa.4
4 O)Q
S I
as5'J zdcteci'8'
c6, /5 (-}
►moo
, Cam, g 13
940085
L3oq Ia sr-
Crce:eml P63/
oSvsiv CeiC
,J . ,C M ,JF(^
c5/
/X Li 5-ao,/
940085
77L f_cj
c--pix.A)1.,y ccik,
S/ ( r/ / 7
),z4ti irG67'/
(P)
v (� o
540055
MASK i /1 ,-
Clack 7-91,,r
2
( �7
<0m mss
/(02.2- & (
6- iceEtri
/�l3 /der A -c-
Grr.z!</ CO go 63/
943055
• EXHIBIT
ri NORTH COLORADO R
MEDICAL CENTER
1801 16th Street
January 11, 1993 Greeley, Colorado 80631.5199
303-352-4121
Mr. Mark Hinze, Chairman
Greeley/Weld Airport Authority
600 Crosier Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mark,
On behalf of North Colorado Medical Center, Inc. (NCMC), I would like to take this opportunity
to express our interest in the further development of the Greeley/Weld airport.
The existence of the current facility has assisted NCMC in developing and providing health care
services to Greeley, Weld County, and our extended service areas in northeastern Colorado,
Western Nebraska, and southeastern Wyoming.
Physicians on our medical staff regularly travel from the airport to provide specialty clinics to
communities in northeast Colorado. Physicians from other communities, including Nebraska,
travel through your facility to assist with specialty surgeries and medical care for people in Weld
County communities as well as those patients referred to NCMC from outlying areas. Medical
teams from various areas of the country fly to the airport on short notice for transplant
operations.
Our recent announcement to pursue discussions regarding affiliation with Lutheran Health
Systems of Fargo, North Dakota may create additional future needs. The regionalization of
health care services may expand the types and amount of clinics offered; the number of patient
referrals; and the number of meetings involving personnel from different areas.
Further development of the airport would enhance our ability to deliver health care and other
services to the members of the various communities we serve.
3/
Ri hard H. Stenner
President
940085
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 1/ DAY OF ji-.w24-t-et 1994:
DOCKET /t I
DOCKET It
DOCKET It
DOCKET 0
PLEASE write or print your name legibly, your address and the DOCKET P (as listed
. above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending.
NIT ADDRESS r HEARING ATTENDING
C 4cl`, l/�C�� i'Q? zr,e 2,1 &uAcife. /'Jiiv, Dist
/r('/l e dui son 8029 E ?,d Co ran 649,65 0 iz
:>-c) Loid OCR fl? Acs
/17;)(4./(
69��11 PP -? ) 205-- vi1 /4v b
-2.3rY sYA, a.-t
67
4R VeSmK; \951 6- -'in Aug Cy ��.
(3f 56tLc-- 1oIRD z , Ili Teliad &do to- 0 .eini0v
oh ilhd0rs-n 1501 - //1 FFo-t G j0C%
//r L
d r..--A-n./ C,O--4-- w 30 uL) 'c N EH Tag, t?
0et1hb . ' - C(, 744v `a1I ? F j q / ' 31 Too Cc ick)(1 J
/ //fyy t s'Jf 'erJ'A'iE' 7/7 /e'� �✓rfv '`k;,5-7/`
3eis nabs oe I °� ITT �l i z1- c � — I ,t I
)-/Luc .rAi raSenn : le 14 0 LJCP & . K:ceelet
fui()vu1 RICAeirASin -4IggU [AK i'' Gz c - 0f '��I .,t
h !:3 6.;5y$ k;. . 0 / ,�G..1 Xs' 4c'e
.V
){''w,5 (14 rikl
A_... r, ( 77cfrir-�v' l'�f1C7 2 ttG-e c7 - e
/� �``II�,� qJf (��\ n
I o CLLa I)'Zi �l40 174' A lip i hH Jb ,ii ',•
i( J� , Mc (fee-. ft Fe,A 5-J- 7 o-t✓ e (..y Co .
Lure e. e-,t/ /6 a I 3o' e/. `e; e e 4tj e!≥) .y≥ 3 c/
as , ' irk v 7 4ke eV C7 CO ?he3/
)c"'P,,. :,, cac�.L, el \,:;l , ( c, ( ,e, .....4j{ .1./.:,et'. ('1,"C clr./ f c,
l
e1?i C 1'4 17 is H'T 5t'Zi,2 f kestcrl) Pk', 63; ea, f el Co X 06'W
r,c,i1ltAµgo7•"i� ��`i�'V.�-l1. .! c -/.- 2`j -. (i, , -7V'u.-c/9 ti . S� t'S'
[ I
9400S5
NOTICE
DOCKET NO. 94-11
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, and the Greeley City
Council will conduct a joint public hearing at 7:00 p.m. , on Tuesday, January 11,
1994, in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County
Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, for the
purpose of considering the Greeley-Weld Airport Master Plan.
All persons in any manner interested in said matter are requested to attend and
may be heard.
BE IT ALSO KNOWN that copies of the proposed Greeley-Weld Airport Master Plan may
be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners,
located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor,
Greeley, Colorado, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
BY: DONALD D. WARDEN
WELD COUNTY CLERK TO THE BOARD
BY: Shelly K. Miller
Deputy Clerk to the Board
DATED: December 22, 1993
PUBLISHED: December 30, 1993, in the Windsor Beacon
940055
•
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO
po01EiND'a 11 COUNTY OF WELD ss
The Board of County
Commissioners of Weld I, KEITH HANSEN, of said County of Weld, being duly
County Colorado, and
the Greeley City sworn, say that I am publisher of
Council will conduct a
leant public hearing at WINDSOR BEACON
7:00 p.m.,on Tuesday,
January 11,1994,in the
Chanters of the ISM a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said
ot crewCounty and State, published in the town of WINDSOR,
.ttampessionirs,:VON, in said County and State; and that the notice, of which
Catmiy cantle-1dr the annexed is a true copy, has been published in said
CYAN,915 10th'butt
Flat Floor, Greeley, weekly for _successive weeks, that the notice
Colorado, for the was published in the regular and entire issue of every
papsse of considerktp number of the during th
the - Greeley-WiW paper e period and time of
Ian Mash Plan: publication, and in the newspaper proper and not in a
supplement, and that the first publication of said notice
Afpi persons in any was in said paper bearing the date of the
manner interested In
said maattea 30 day of
roasted , A.D., 19O{ and
Maybe heard. the last publication bearing the date of the
O IT ALSO KNOWN day of , A.D., _
and
that copies of the that the said WINDSOR BEACON has been 9 published
peed Greeley-Weld
Part Master Plan atop continuously and uninterruptedly for the period of 5
be examined in the consecutive weeks,in said County and State, prior to the
dae of the Clerk*the
Geed of County of first publication of said notice, and the same is a
Ormdaskmers,leaald newspaper within the meaning of an Act to regulate
la *a Weld County printing of legal notices an advertisements, approved
Cerdonnial Center MS May 18, 1931,and all prior cts ar as in force.
lalh.Street Third flaw, ;6f�/
Greeley, Colo**.
MMMay through Rem
.1(a' A(
p!0 a.m.to Sb0 pm.
RD OF COUNTY
P LISHER
�Eyy vs
fy1r. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 307?-- day
of littelAircka- lgn
II IDEA, Y Dkit, 2216-1-ageve
Vg ,pipr ' o NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires duly 9i /9°f CP
BY: MMNyCalf,f, Cf
Da* Q$S* te the
• Board
DATED: December 22.
1983
rlydaer lad*on
Itstalled GUS
940085
ni7
J
SUMMARY REPORT
AIRPORTJ." ASTER PLAN UPDATE STUDY
W
,!:,::, for
I
GREE ` Y-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT
rEELEY COLORADO
k
tH;.
}' ' .T- '*4414-
t'ie X4 Y a, 3h3 y 4
3 �'�` '°Yfi ry ri 3
` " s a-. r i' to �*
;;;;FS'a
P U - i G1.i.' b ,
a.. _ 4'14'1'..r,-,L: " � " e a' 1, . x y� .
Ss.. F '�.e ,"'y�v t y 4 '_ a 4,r eG»a ,2v Y `" r it.i� 1 _ '5yC 1"' k°� 3 � "a+ �'lY ,S3A j�4 yr n TT ii-''s: S +Yf`g ` wy'� yt;.:: . "xxtwa ,p.. fi st
i"
4.4414o ₹ e , x -, 4N
FriS.a` ` G3c r.,a- yx 1 ` .+ `4 iFa Fiis 1.�t }<
•*, e� 3 ;-:,.4 ` �' �'' 3� ' 4 i iii:t
' a ""` r' a{4 ti 3 ' s
mix a F -- '! } " ,�^ y Z ,;,* .
^=.�aX° `,,''_..4„-,4:,44[4...„4"...,§' A4.,,..4-4;:i4-4:::: ;a
r a 4iskr ISBILL
rs 6�'`� q ,4, P4 r te` + " aAIRPORT CONS kLTANTS AURORA ORADO
ff' x��S � yk sa
y dA V.w s }i * e 94..�d�
a D : (K a k.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE NUMBER
i. OBJECTIVE OF SUMMARY REPORT 1
I. OVERVIEW 2
II. PLANNING OBJECTIVES 3
III. HISTORICAL AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY SUMMARY 4
IV. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 7
Existing Facilities 7
Demand/Capacity Review 7
Runway Lengths 8
V. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 10
Alternative "EW": East-West Primary Runway 11
Alternative "NS": North-South Primary Runway 14
Alternative "NW": Northwest-Southeast Primary Runway 17
VI. SUMMARY COSTS: THREE ALTERNATIVES 20
VII. ADDITIONAL AIRPORT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 22
Airspace 22
Land Use Compatibility 22
Near Airport Impacts 23
Report Sununary 24
940085
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES: PAGE NUMBER
TABLE I: National Plan of Integrated Airports System 1990-1999 5
TABLE II: Colorado Aviation System Plan 6
TABLE III: FAA Recommended Runway Lengths 9
TABLE IV: Fast-West Runway Alternative 14
TABLE V: North-South Runway Alternative 17
TABLE VI: Northwest-Southeast Runway Alternative 20
TABLE VII: Cost Summary, Three Alternatives 21
FIGURES: PAGE NUMBER
FIGURE I: Alternative "EW" (East-West) 25
FIGURE II: Alternative "NS" (North-South) 26
FIGURE III: Alternative "NW" (Northwest-Southeast) 27
940085
OBJECTIVE OF SUMMARY REPORT
The objective of this summary report is to provide a document which will guide all interested
parties in their consensus development and selection of an alternative which best meets the needs
of all parties. This summary report provides a concise summary of the advantages and
disadvantages of the three principle alternatives for the long-term development of the Greeley-
Weld County Airport, together with cost estimates for these three alternatives. This report
contains the following sections: a historical overview of the airport; a listing of planning
objectives; the historical and forecast air traffic activity; facility requirements to meet the
forecast traffic; and the airport development alternatives. Following the airport development
alternatives is a section presenting additional airport design considerations and a summary
section.
It is important to note that the basic premise behind the alternatives presented in this plan is that
the airport facilities will be developed to safely and efficiently accommodate all airport users.
This inference necessitates the development of alternatives which provide facilities for both short
term (primary runway) and long term (parallel and crosswind runway) capacity enhancements.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 1 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
940055
I. OVERVIEW
The Greeley-Weld County Airport is located two and one-half miles east of the City of Greeley,
in Weld County, Colorado. The closest airports to Greeley-Weld County Airport are the Fort
Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins Downtown Airpark, and the Easton-Valley
View Airport. The Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport is an air carrier served airport,
while the other airports are general aviation use airports, and along with Greeley-Weld County
Airport are Denver Center controlled.
The Greeley-Weld County Airport is located in the approximate center of Weld County, in
northeastern Colorado. The largest population centers of northeastern Colorado located near the
airport are: Greeley, 2.5 miles to the west; Fort Collins, 23 miles to the northwest; and
Loveland, 22 miles to the west. The airport facilities are located on State Highway 263, 2.5
miles east of U.S. Highway 85, and approximately 50 miles north of Denver, and 50 miles south
of Cheyenne, Wyoming. In addition, Interstate 25 is approximately 15 miles to the west and
provides convenient access to the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland.
The Greeley-Weld County Airport is the third busiest general aviation airport in the State of
Colorado and has been in operation since 1943, with the original name of the airport listed as
Weld County Municipal Airport. The airport has a primary runway (9/27) oriented east-west
6,200 feet long by 100 feet in width, and a crosswind runway (17/35) oriented north-south 3,600
feet long by 75 feet wide. There is a 400 foot overrun at the approach end of Runway 27. As
housing and businesses move eastward towards the airport, the expansion alternatives for the
Greeley-Weld County Airport will become more limited. In addition to the urbanization
pressures, the mining of oil reserves near the airport places additional restraints on airport
expansion plans.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 2 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
94,0055
II. PLANNING OBJECTIVES
A Master Plan Update Study and an Environmental Assessment for the New Runway 17/35
Complex was completed for the Greeley-Weld County Airport in 1990. The master planning
process provides airport owners with guidance for future development requirements, including
the airfield, terminal area, and related facilities. The primary objectives of the study process
for the selection of an alternative runway alignment are as follows:
• Forecast aviation activity, evaluate alternatives, and make recommendations for
the long term viability of the airport;
• Determine practical development staging which (1) correspond to forecast
demand, (2) are consistent with community development goals, (3) provide the
most cost effective solution to local aviation needs, and (4) serve the largest
segment of the entire community;
• Provide maximum flexibility to adjust to unforseen demands and requirements
throughout the planning period;
• Assure environmental compatibility of the airport and aviation with surrounding
land uses.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 3 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
910065
M. HISTORICAL AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Airport activity at the Greeley-Weld County Airport has fluctuated year to year, but the
consistency of forecasts by FAA and by consultants indicates the following:
• Activity by corporations using this airport is a major source of airport and
economy related activity. Itinerant activity is projected by FAA to have an
increasing share of total airport operations as is presented in Table I. Total
airport operations are projected to increase beyond airport capacity by 1994
according to FAA forecasts.
• In a slightly more conservative study, total airport operations are projected to
reach 93 percent of airfield capacity (204,100 annual operations) by the year
1995, and exceed airfield capacity by 17.5 percent before the year 2015,
according to the Colorado Aviation Systems Plan, as presented in Table II.
• Current airport activity is estimated at 182,000 annual operations with the
majority of these operations conducted in training activity. In addition itinerant
jet activity has increased significantly in the last few years.
• In either case, aviation industry standards for airport planning indicate that when
a runway system reaches 60 percent of capacity, steps to increase that capacity
should be taken. The Greeley-Weld County Airport is currently at approximately
90 percent of capacity. FAA recommends that this airport be improved with
airport capacity enhancements within the next five years as indicated in, National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), 1990 - 1999.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 4 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
940085
The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 1990-1999 provides base year
(1990), five year (1994) and ten year (1999) estimates of aviation activity for airports
nationwide. The forecast activity for the Greeley-Weld County Airport is shown in Table I.
TABLE I
NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS 1990-1999
GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT
ITEM 1990 1994 1999
SERVICE LEVEL General Aviation General Aviation General Aviation
AIRPORT ROLE General Utility Transport Type Transport Type
BASED AIRCRAFT 255 257 259
TOTAL OPERATIONS 161,000 217,000 264,000
ITINERANT OPERATIONS 77,000 113,000 143,000
(Percent of Total) (41.8 %) (52.1 %) (54.2 %)
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 5 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
910085
The draft, Colorado Aviation System Plan published November 11, 1993 by Bucher, Willis,
& Ratliff, an independent engineering firm contracted by the Colorado Division of Aeronautics,
recommends that a 10,000 foot long runway 16/34 be constructed, and a new terminal building
containing at least 6,000 square feet of space be built at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The
long runway is recommended in order to, "alleviate the airports capacity deficit, and
accommodate large business aircraft." The recommendations in the system plan for both length
and alignment are consistent with the 1990, Airport Master Plan Update Study, by Isbill
Associates, Inc. and with the studies performed by the Engineer and the airport management
since the 1990 airport master plan and environmental assessment. Forecasts from the Colorado
Aviation System Plan are presented in Table II.
TABLE II
COLORADO AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN
GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT
Operations (Capacity) Annual: 204,100 Hourly (VFR): 117 Hourly (IFR): 61
Operations (Demand) Year 2015: 240,000 Annual Operations
Notes:Colorado Aviation System Plan, Bucher,Willis&Ratliff, Nov 11, 1993. The annual and hourly capacity estimates agree
with the,Airport Master Nan Update, (shill Associates. 1990.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 6 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
940085
IV. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
In order to meet the projected growth of aviation activity through the year 2015 as presented in
the Colorado Aviation Systems Plan, the facility requirements for an expanded airport must
be examined. The Greeley-Weld County Airport has been developed over an approximate 50
year period in a series of expansion and improvement projects.
EXISTING FACILITIES
• Runway 9/27 is 6,200 feet long and 100 feet wide and is equipped with an
Instrument Landing System (MALSR) to Runway end 9.
• Runway 17/35 is 3,600 feet long and 75 feet wide.
• Numerous navigational and approach aids are available including the VORTAC
located at Gill, Colorado, approximately six miles northeast of the airport with
TACAN components; Medium Intensity Lighting (MIRL) system on Runway
9/27; Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) on Runway 27 and Runway
Alignment Indicator Lights (RAIL) on Runway 9; Precision Approach Path
Indicator (Runway 9) and Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) for Runway
27.
DEMAND/CAPACITY REVIEW
The Colorado Aviation System Plan reports the existing Greeley-Weld County Airport has a
capacity of 204,100 annual operations and a need exists for a 10,000 foot long primary runway.
In order to meet these requirements the following improvements should be made.
• Construct a 10,000 foot long primary runway with an initial stage of 9,000 feet.
• The 6,200 foot length of the existing Runway 9/27 is too short for the corporate
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 7 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
940085
aviation users of larger jet aircraft at the airport, necessitating a runway
expansion or construction of a new runway to provide the required length.
• The 3,600 foot length of the existing Runway 17/35 is inadequate to
accommodate jet aircraft users.
• Acquire sufficient land in the first stage of development to accommodate the
future 10,000 foot runway. Acquisition of land provides both for required land
and provides a buffer to minimize noise impacts on surrounding areas;
• Relocate hangars, buildings, and support facilities within the recommended
Building Restriction Line (BRL) or the Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ).
• A portion of the parallel taxiway to Runway 9/27 is separated from the runway
by 250 feet, which is below the standard 400 feet separation from an instrument
equipped runway. Since the runway was originally constructed to serve small
aircraft, the 250 foot separation was determined to be adequate, with the
understanding that when or if the runway were extended for larger aircraft, the
taxiway would need to be straightened to a uniform 400 feet separation from the
primary runway. The realigned taxiway is presented on Figure "EW". In
addition, any expansion to the west would also entail demolition of approximately
eleven buildings currently located within the Building Restriction Line, in order
to comply with Federal Aviation Administration requirements.
RUNWAY LENGTHS
FAA provides a computer program which easily computes the required runway lengths at
airports given the airport elevation, mean maximum temperature of the hottest month, and length
of haul for airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds. This computer program is based on FAA
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 8 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
940085
Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design. The results of the computer program is
presented in Table III. For the Greeley-Weld County Airport it is proposed that the primary
runway length should be 10,000 feet long with a first stage length of 9,000 feet, the crosswind
runway should be about 6,090 feet, and a short parallel training runway should be provided.
The results of this FAA program agrees with the recommendations in the Colorado Aviation
System Plan.
TABLE III
FAA RECOMMENDED RUNWAY LENGTHS
GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT
AIRPORT OR AIRCRAFT ELEMENTS DATA
A. Airport Elevation 4,658 feet
B. Mean Daily Maximum Temperature of the Hottest Month 91.10 F
C. Maximum Difference in Runway Centerline Elevation 18 feet
D. Length of Haul for Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds 1,500 miles
RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN
SMALL AIRPLANES WITH LESS THAN 10 PASSENGER SEATS
75 Percent of these small airplanes 4,430 feet
95 Percent of these small airplanes 5,850 feet
100 Percent of these small airplanes 6,090 feet
Small Airplanes With 10 or More Passenger Seats 6,090 feet
LARGE AIRPLANES OF 60,000 POUNDS OR LESS
75 Percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 6,720 feet
75 Percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load 8,780 feet
100 Percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 10,250 feet
100 Percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load 11,180 feet
AIRPLANES OF MORE THAN 60,000 POUNDS, (approximately) 9,030 feet
Source:FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13.Airport Design.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 9 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
940085
V. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
The Airport Master Plan Update and the Environmental Assessment process provides a guide
for the orderly development of the airport. After consideration of past and present aviation and
socioeconomic trends and community goals, a recommended staged improvement program was
developed as outlined in the following discussion and graphically illustrated on Figures "EW",
"NS," and "NW." The airport improvement program considers the need for an initial 9,000 feet
long runway with an ultimate extension to 10,000 feet; the primary runway is to be equipped
with the instrument landing system; the remaining runways are to be VFR-only runways; a short
parallel runway is to be provided to the primary runway; a cross-wind runway is to be provided;
and land is to be acquired to meet FAA requirements to minimize off-airport noise impacts and
to enhance on-airport operational safety.
Projection of exact times for the various improvements is impractical. This plan should be
accepted as a basis for periodic review of aviation requirements at Greeley-Weld County Airport
and continuously updated to match aviation needs and available funding. FAA funds included
in the following tables are based on current (1993) participation rates.
The cost to develop each alternative was based on the following assumptions:
• All land would be acquired in the initial development period.
• Dwelling/Farmstead relocations would occur in the initial development period.
• Utility relocations would occur in the initial development period.
• Bridges for Bliss Road and/or Cherry Avenue, if required, would be developed
in the initial development period for the ultimate runway/taxiway requirements.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 10 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
940085
• The existing dirt roads, County Roads 64 and 64 1/2, would be closed at the
proposed property lines if either the north-south or the northwest-southeast
alternative is approved.
• Oil wells near the Greeley-Weld County Airport have a five to seven year
productive period, as reported by the State of Colorado Oil and Gas Commission.
It is assumed that all existing wells will remain in active production for the cost
comparison period, however many of the existing wells may no longer be in
production when the airport plans are approved, and construction is programmed
for initiation by FAA. It is also assumed that oil well modifications/relocations
will occur in the initial development period. The total estimated oil well costs
may, therefore, be overstated.
• The basic runway system requirement consists of a primary runway having an
initial length of 9,000 feet, an ultimate length of 10,000 feet, a parallel runway,
and a cross-wind runway.
• FAA analysis of the final airfield configuration may modify the role and function
of each runway for airspace and operational considerations. However, the three
alternatives considered in this report will provide equivalent airport capacities as
long as each concept is built with the three separate runways as designed --
anything less will decrease capacity.
ALTERNATIVE "EW": East-West Primary Runway
This alternative includes the initial and ultimate lengths for the primary Runway 9R/27L. The
costs for this alternative are presented in Table IV and the advantages/disadvantages of this
alternative follow:
OVERVIEW REPORT Page I1 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
• The local community perceives this alternative can be accomplished in less time
than the others. (Each alternative will require a new environmental assessment,
land acquisition, infrastructure relocations, and construction scheduling. The net
time necessary for completion of each alternative is nearly identical).
The disadvantages of this alternative include:
• The terminal building would have to be relocated or a new terminal constructed.
• Construction of an extended Runway 9/27 and the realignment of the parallel
taxiway will require periodic closures of airport during the construction period.
• The installation of the approach light system for the extended runway can be
located so as to fit around Cherry Avenue, however for a runway length over
8,000 feet, Cherry Avenue would have to be bridged, relocated or closed.
• Bliss Road would be relocated for construction of the extension of runway 9/27.
Bliss Road would also need to be bridged, closed or rerouted for construction of
the extended and widened Runway 17/35.
• Expansion of the runway to the west would result in more intense aircraft noise
in the residential areas on the east side of Greeley (the existing residential area
would be within about one-half mile of the ultimate extended runway).
• Flight tracks from the extended runway would extend further west and would be
over residential and commercial areas closer to downtown Greeley, with the
heavier and noisier aircraft operating over the densely populated areas and the
quieter aircraft operating over sparsely populated areas.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 12 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
9O085
• At least six residences and/or farmhouses located near the intersection of Cherry
Avenue and Bliss Road would require relocation.
• At least two existing oil wells would be capped, modified, or removed, and
storage tanks would be modified.
• Ten additional structures, including eight aircraft hangars (total of 88,200 square
feet) and the fuel farms would be relocated when the parallel taxiway is
straightened to meet setback criteria for an instrument runway.
• Construction of the runway in two stages will involve moving the instrument
system twice (not required in other alternatives).
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 13 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
940085
TABLE IV
EAST-WEST RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE
GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT
PRIMARY RUNWAY: 9R/27L (9,000 feet) $ 6,400,000
PARALLEL RUNWAY: 9L/27R (4,400 feet) $ 1,500,000
CROSSWIND: 17/35 (8,000 feet) $ 3,300,000
BLISS ROAD BRIDGE $ 1,900,000
CHERRY AVENUE BRIDGE $ 3,000,000
TOTAL 9,000' NO BRIDGES $11,200,000
TOTAL 9,000' WITH BRIDGES $16,100,000
TOTAL 10,000' NO BRIDGES $ 12,500,000
TOTAL 10,000' RUNWAY WITH BRIDGES $ 17,400,000
ALTERNATIVE "NS": North-South Primary Runway
The north-south alternative was included in the 1990 environmental assessment. This alternative
included extending the existing Runway 17/35 northward for a total length of 10,000 feet. A
new 4,400 foot long parallel north/south runway would be constructed eastward of the existing
runway, and runway 9/27 would continue to be utilized as a VFR-only runway. A decision on
this alternative was deferred, pending further research and review. The cost of developing this
alternative is presented in Table V.
The benefits of the north-south alternative include:
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 14 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
9400S5
• This alternative provides better wind coverage than is available for the east-west
runway alternative.
• Disruption of residential areas is minor.
• Aircraft operating on the north-south parallel runways would have their flight
tracks over less populated areas as compared with operations with the east-west
alternative. Most approaches to the airport would be from the south over the
river and flood plains, and departures to the north would be over predominantly
agricultural land with widely scattered residences.
• Runway 9/27, in this alternative, can be used as a fully-developed cross-wind
VFR runway. The parallel taxiway would not need to be realigned.
• Runway 9/27 and Runway 17/35 could continue in operation with only minor
disruptions in activity during the construction cycle for the new north-south
runways.
• The existing north-south and east-west aircraft traffic patterns would continue,
with the larger and heavier aircraft operating to the north and south over open
farming land to the north or over flood plain areas to the south.
• Training activity would occur east of runway 17/35 over agricultural land and in
traffic patterns now used by the airport.
• There would be minor or limited change in the use of hangars or other buildings
in the terminal area, with the final determination of hangar relocations to be made
by FAA.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 15 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
9460^,5
The disadvantages of this alternative include the following:
• More land would be acquired than with the east-west alternative.
• Bliss Road would be bridged or closed, and County Roads 64 and 64 1/2 would
be closed or relocated.
• The existing hangar located south of the east end of Runway 9/27 and east of the
existing terminal building would need to be relocated.
• Five dwelling units, including farm structures would be relocated with associated
power lines and other utilities capped or relocated.
• The Coors water injection well located north of County Road 64 would be capped
- and all storage tanks, pumps and facilities relocated.
• Oil wells would be capped or modified, and oil storage tanks relocated.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 16 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
540O85
TABLE V
NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE
GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT
PRIMARY RUNWAY: 17R/35L (9,000 Feet) $11,300,000
PARALLEL RUNWAY: 17L/35R (4,400 Feet) $ 1,700,000
CROSSWIND RUNWAY: 9/27 (6,200 Feet) $ 0
BLISS ROAD BRIDGE $ 4,500,000
TOTAL 9,000' NO BRIDGE $13,000,000
TOTAL 9,000' WITH BRIDGE $17,500,000
TOTAL 10,000' NO BRIDGE $ 14,000,000
TOTAL 10,000' WITH BRIDGE $ 18,500,000
ALTERNATIVE "NW": Northwest-Southeast Primary Runway
Alternative north-south alignments and orientations were explored in the environmental
assessment, and studies by the Engineer and the sponsor have continued since that time - which
has led to the development of this alternative. This alternative retains the existing Runway 9/27
to be operated as a VFR-only runway; the existing Runway 17/35 to be used as a training VFR-
only runway; and the new long northwest-southeast runway is to be oriented less than 3 degrees
to the west as compared with the alignment of Runway 17/35, but is shifted about 700 feet west
of Runway 17/35.
The runway alignment studies considered the location of adjacent residences, farms, oil wells,
airport structures, other elements of concern, and the engineering feasibility of the various
alignments. These elements were presented by the Engineer and reviewed with Airport
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 17 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
940085
Management, and alternative alignments were considered. An on-site visit was made by Airport
Management and the Engineer to narrow the selection of a revised alignment. The
recommended north-west alternative entails the least requirement to relocate residences (none),
oil wells/storage tanks, and other users. The cost required to implement this alternative is
presented in Table VI.
The south end of the proposed runway to be constructed in the initial stage was set to clear the
primary surface width of 1,000 feet for Runway 9/27, or 500 feet north of the centerline of the
runway. The primary mode of operation for the airport would shift from current operations on
the east-west runway, to the new northwest-southeast runway complex. The new runway is
defined to be a runway 16/34 alignment to differentiate the new runway from the alignment for
runway 17/35.
FAA has reviewed preliminary concept drawings for this alternative, and has determined that
there are no major problems with this concept. A detailed airspace coordination will be
conducted by FAA after the final plans are submitted for FAA review and approval.
The benefits of the northwest-southeast alternative include:
• No dwelling unit relocations required.
• Wind coverage is better than with either of the other two alternatives.
• Construction of Runway 16/34 could be staged to minimize runway closure of
runway 9/27 and runway 17/35 could operate without interruption.
• The Coors water injection well would not be disturbed.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 18 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
940085
• The existing north-south and east-west aircraft traffic patterns would continue,
with the larger and heavier aircraft operating generally to the west of the new
runway 16/34 over open farming land, and the smaller aircraft operating over
established existing flight patterns east of the airport. With the majority of
operations performed over agricultural or the flood plain related to the river south
of the airport, the noise impacts on residents would be minimized.
• This alternative shall satisfy all current and projected capability and capacity
demands for the foreseeable future.
• This is the most cost-effective alternative of those considered.
The disadvantages of this alternative include:
• Oil wells would need to be capped or modified and oil storage tanks relocated.
• More land would be acquired than with the east-west alternative.
• Bliss Road would be bridged or closed and the dirt County Roads 64 and 64 1/2
would be closed or relocated.
• The terminal building and one other hangar would have to be relocated. It does
not appear that any other buildings shall be relocated, however FAA will make
a final determination as to relocation requirements for buildings on the airport.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 19 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
9400S5
TABLE VI
NORTHWEST-SOUTHEAST RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE
GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT
PRIMARY RUNWAY: 16/34 (9,000 feet) $ 7,700,000
PARALLEL RUNWAY: 17/35 (3,600 feet) $ 0
CROSSWIND RUNWAY: 9/27 (6,200 feet) $ 0
BLISS ROAD BRIDGE $ 2,900,000
TOTAL 9,000' NO BRIDGE $ 7,700,000
TOTAL 9,000' WITH BRIDGE $10,600,000
TOTAL 10,000' NO BRIDGE $ 8,700,000
TOTAL 10,000' WITH BRIDGE $ 11,600,000
VI. SUMMARY COSTS: THREE ALTERNATIVES
The alternative with the least cost for the initial 9,000 feet length of the primary runway is the
east-west runway alignment. The overall system improvement cost for the northwest-southeast
alternative, is $10,600,000 including the bridge over Bliss Road and $7,700,000 without the
bridge. This cost compares to a total development cost of $17,400,000 for the east-west
alternative including the bridges or $12,500,000 without the bridges. The cost saving for the
northwest-southeast alternative arises primarily from not needing to construct a new long cross-
wind runway to meet the long-term operational and capacity requirements of the airport, and
from no need to construct a parallel training runway (already existing), no need to straighten the
parallel taxiway to runway 9/27, no need to displace residences, and a much smaller number of
airport structures requiring displacement. The cost comparisons are summarized in Table VII.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 20 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
940085
TABLE VII
COST SUMMARY THREE ALTERNATIVES
GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT
IMPROVEMENTS Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III
E-W (9/27) N-S (17/35) NW-SE (16/34)
9,000 FOOT LONG RUNWAY COST COMPARISONS
PRIMARY RUNWAY $ 6,400,000 $ 11,300,000 $ 7,700,000
PARALLEL RUNWAY $ 1,500,000 $ 1,700,000 $ 0
CROSSWIND $ 3,300,000 $ 0 $ 0
BLISS ROAD BRIDGE $ 1,900,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 2,900,000
CHERRY AVE BRIDGE $ 3,000,000 $ 0 $ 0
TOTAL 9,000' NO $ 11,200,000 $ 13,000,000 $ 7,700,000
BRIDGES
TOTAL 9,000' WITH $ 16,100,000 $ 17,500,000 $ 10,600,000
BRIDGES
10,000 FOOT LONG RUNWAY COST COMPARISONS
TOTAL 10,000' NO $ 12,500,000 $ 14,000,000 $ 8,700,000
BRIDGES
TOTAL 10,000' WITH $ 17,400,000 $ 18,500,000 $ 11,600,000
BRIDGES
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 21 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
9(111085
VII. ADDITIONAL AIRPORT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
AIRSPACE
From an analysis of airspace and meteorological conditions conducted in conjunction with the
Master Plan, it was determined that there are no airspace conflicts nor meteorological constraints
operating against the development of the airport. It was determined that a north-south runway
complex would provide superior wind coverage, as compared with development of the east-west
runway complex. FAA has reviewed the three alternatives contained in this report and has
determined that each alternative appears to be operationally viable.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
Land use compatibility is measured in terms of the impacts from aircraft operations on occupants
of lands near an airport. The unit of measure, now accepted by FAA is the Ldn 65, which is
an "A" weighted measure which accumulates average daily operations and weights the noise for
evening and night-lime operations. Single family residential development is not recommended
within the Ldn 65 contours. There are no concentrated residential developments within the Ldn
65 contour for any of the alternatives, however with the expansion of Runway 9/27 to the west
the Ldn 65 contour will likely approach the existing residential areas west of the airport which
are less than one mile to the west from the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Bliss Road.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 22 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
94.6085
NEAR AIRPORT IMPACTS
In addition to the noise impacts discussed above, there are off-airport impacts arising from
aircraft operating within the near airport environment - including aircraft operating along
published approaches to the airport, within the local traffic pattern airspace, and other aircraft
flying through the airport's airspace. The local traffic operating airspace is depicted in an inset
on Figures "EW", "NS" and "NW" for the three alternatives analyzed in this report. Aircraft
typically will complete their operations into the airport within these areas.
Each aircraft operation arriving or departing the airport, either from FAA published
approach/departure patterns or from aircraft operating in the local traffic operating airspace,
have impacts on near airport land uses - and the land uses have impacts on the airport.
Compatibility is achieved when zoning and land acquisition policies are interrelated so as to
minimize noise impacts and enhance operational safety to users in the air and on the ground.
Zoning should also be provided which limits the installation of distracting lights, and tall
structures within the airport operational areas.
In addition to the aircraft operational impacts discussed above, the construction of oil wells near
the airport has an impact on future development plans for the airport. New oil wells are under
construction, or permits have been taken for new wells, in the areas around the airport. For
example, in early 1993 two new wells were started in Section 35 to the north of the airport. The
policy of the State of Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, provides for a maximum density of
one oil well for every 40 acres of land (i.e. a lateral separation between wells of about 1,320
feet).
As part of the design process for new airfield facilities, the locations of existing oil wells and
storage tanks will be considered, and where possible the active oil wells will be modified and
the oil tanks relocated to satisfy FAA criteria. For oil wells no longer in production, the wells
will be capped and tanks removed. Oil well modification of active wells will include capping
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 23 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
9 0S5
of wells in areas to be paved, and construction of below-ground pumping rooms for active wells
located within the airport primary surfaces or object free areas. Wells which are located within
the safety areas will be equipped with lift pumps and safety shut-off valves.
REPORT SUMMARY
This report has outlined the need for greater airport runway capacity; the need to provide a
longer primary runway having an ultimate length of 10,000 feet; and the need to minimize the
total improvement cost for the users and the community. The concept having the least
development cost and the least impact on developed areas near the airport is the northwest-
southeast development. This alternative has the least long-term cost since the two existing
runways satisfy the capacity, community relations, and crosswind operational requirements. The
1990, Environmental Assessment for Runway 17/35 Complex, examined the environmental
consequences relating to the development of a new north-south primary runway complex, herein
referred to as the "NS" alternative.
The alternative accepted as an outgrowth of this Summary Report and consequent meetings and
discussions will be subject to a similar environmental assessment report and a public hearing will
be held to obtain input from the community. FAA will review the documents with public
comments prior to approval of the plans.
OVERVIEW REPORT Page 24 of 24
Greeley-Weld County Airport
9ZGo 5
O
OO
W
O
O
N ,
w
W
,,
E---t O
Q
0
0 N
co) re ti O ■ 1 0
.� J o
Y yi
a z
3 cc 0 z
/i Z • Nr
• r..
.Z
CO I-
I-U
CO 3
� WF +
ill CLUJ
/` CLw LJ/�_ J,C\\Irk1 RVZ
J _ I —r
j
':1 -, > •
11.1 CC
I—
a z / c
Lew _ '
Ma a
CC
ay .�
O¢ wa ce
Q¢
U.O. �3 H� /
W
• a)ZIIIIITIC LL CO J
.. ■ S / a
■ A cc
■ w 3
Ill
• S
/
Mil 3 J/
.J,
• ,_4 . >.IIIIII: rjr.... .,//
___ • .Z / .
uOiJ •
a c.
■.. La2wy / i co
Q w z a aW / J.
Z Or / • a
> 0 rex/ 3
sr z aw/ 1 z
w r r / I cc
U3 X / J L7
C W / J z
/ J
OZ :/ I ¢ y
JO t_
UU i ay w
�a
N z • ,f I I,� fl:'' a o
rn �� Cw„ f r- `-�_i f" O G r
r 2 if W Z 10
W
�' f , f' m Y H m H
` Cv '/ > O a U Or J W W 2
(4 a zuo 1(;) c::,▪ i � Ji' i I J S WW SO I- R Z H S r W
it �S:�V �' a , IL.O. S Ja�� O G J d W C
•T••• Z aw wallop-
O
44 Z •
`<y OGW DMO �
el O m a
A \ J>• ' z2 WW. z _ a_,IAS CS
.. 0.' ma W aaW;md Y U)z COmr O a w Y • W --WO�- a X 7 X 7 K
„ p
J OOZS_a2 WacWLLa
ti
y
9400S5
M N N - - NM I NM NM I I - M NM NM M - NM IIII
/j!',::r'
'
ALTERNATIVE ”Ns,,
,
•
K
85
41 4
6 .il'; I.4-• ,
/ _, •,_,
. ..7-1-
■ 1'
/CITY "i�/%I� lir -
EELEY / i�//�'�'i% �' 263 `°"a
•
.006. � N [ ❑
CLOSE ROAD 64
•
FLIGHT PATTERN FOR ALTERNATE "NS" 1,
/FUTURE
PROPERTY
1 wI
is
•
04112•••11111awe.• IV. sI►�'s.
LOSE BUSS LOAD OR
l7�i Al ..a I. ! CONSTUUCT TUNNEL
M 1
T-....
_ ` I II
•
EXISTING
RUNWAY 9/27
/ e
t PROPOSED RUNWAY
► r_..17L/35R
a N
L.. ,,,i,,, 0-,,,-,,i ,_
Il , „ ;
i 4 ,'.-_ I,
, ,i
M I
LEGEND ��■•� I
• OIL AND GAS WELLS (TO BE MODIFIED)
- OIL AND GAS WELLS (MAY NOT '
NEED REMOVAL)
`: NOUSE MAT STRUCTURES _ i
A (TO BE REMOVED)
AIRPORT STRUCTURES (TO BE REMOVED)
• MAY NOT NEED REMOVAL
• EXISTING BUILDINGS
Rvz RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE
--- EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
• FUTURE PROPERTY LINE soo o 600 1200 1800
MUM PROPOSED AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION
SCALE IN FEET
NM MI E NM NM MI MI ■E I= EMI MN ■M I= N N MI OM MI MIN
ALTERNATIVE "NW'
I G
8
0 CLOSE OR RELOCATE •
a1 3 45 7 i t 1 i ROAD 84 1/2
/CITY
GREELEY �� / ���_r,1r" Zeal •
•
..1
�� CLOSE
ROAD 84
FLIGHT PATTERN FOR ALTERNATE "NW" ''• •
I
FUTURE
PROPERTY
i
4.
POOPOSEC RLilliN A Y
• • 16 K OSE KISS ROAD OR
EXISTING PROPERTY ■. CONSTRUCT TUISIE.
■
I I
I ; v km - ,
i
� / }
:/ /
/
/
p.,11 ,� EXISTING RUNWAY
va .,• s/35
\assr••• •••
EXISTING i 'r .t � /
II RUNWAY 9/27 1
.. RI
1, -Al-
r Q- ;, �f
Li.
L
4
Le-..- ---
LEGEND •
• OIL AND GAS WELLS ITO BE MODIFIED)
• OIL AND GAS WELLS (MAY NOT
NEED REMOVAL)
41 HOUSE AND FARM STRUCTURES
A (TO BE REMOVEDI
AIRPORT STRUCTURES ITO BE REMOVED) N
• MAY NOT NEED REMOVAL
• EXISTING BUILDINGS
RVZ RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE
--••-EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
FUTURE PROPERTY LINE 600 0 600 1200 1800
MOM PROPOSED AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION
SCALE IN FEET
TO: Pat Persichino
FROM: Vicky Sprague
DATE: January 5
RE: Airport Hearing on January 11
Regarding our earlier discussion about seating arrangements for the Tuesday,
January 11, 7:00 p.m. hearing:
Five commissioners and six councilmen will attend. Let's put 11 chairs on the
platform, and they can share microphones. We will put commissioners on one end
and the council on the other. The council will bring their name plates.
Security was notified of the meeting on December 22.
Thanks.
cc: rol Harding
940065
i . .. . ...
January 7, 1994
Ms. Constance Harbert, Chairperson
Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Madame Chairperson,
After fully discussing this matter with Dr. George Conger, President of AIMS
Community College, and the faculty/staff of the AIMS Community College Flight
Training Program, I would like to heartily endorse the new alternative for the
planned expansion of the Greeley-Weld County Airport.
In the past, AIMS has maintained a somewhat conservative approach in its
endorsement of projects concerning public interest. For a project to receive
such open and positive support from our institution, we must believe without
question that it truly benefits our community in such a manner that it is our duty
to proclaim endorsement.
We believe that there are numerous benefits to this new plan for growth at the
Greeley-Weld County Airport. Items that we find particularly attractive include:
1) Safety: The existing north-south runway that will parallel the new runway
is ideal for training purposes. This will increase safety as well as capacity at the
airport, finally enabling us to separate student traffic from the high-
performance/high-speed turbine and jet aircraft on approach to or departure from
the airport and in the airport traffic pattern.
2) Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness: Through the addition of just ONE
runway, the Greeley-Weld County Airport will achieve the capability to
accommodate and attract existing and future high-performance turbine/jet
aircraft that are currently restricted from operating at our airport. The airport will
also attain superior training capability through utilization of the existing north-
south runway as a parallel training runway next to the new runway, and will enjoy
greatly enhanced crosswind capability by utilizing the existing east-west runway
for this purpose. NO OTHER OPTION EVER PRESENTED HAS BEEN ABLE
TO PRODUCE SUCH A LARGE INCREASE IN CAPACITY AND CAPABILITY
AT SUCH A LOW COST.
3) Public Good: As we move toward the beginning of a new century,
Greeley and Weld County have the opportunity to become major players in the
1 f- ;4 • I i ,
C / 4 1 ' t- y-,
9400S5
support, training, manufacturing, and business of aviation. Much of this
opportunity exists because of geographic proximity to Denver International
Airport. The fact that the Greeley-Weld County Airport is already operating at
90% of its capacity and that operations continue to increase, is evidence that the
potential exists. We believe that the potential economic impact of our local
airport to this community is tremendous, however, the facilities must exist to
accommodate the future demands of aircraft users, and to attract here.
We at AIMS Community College wish to commend the Airport Authority on a
plan that appears to have truly examined the critical issues, clearly and precisely
defined the needs and goals of the community, and emerged with an alternative
that on all counts has resolved those items of major concern. We applaud the
obvious logic of this plan.
S'ncerel ,
•
Loyal L. Kelsey, Colonel, USAF Ret)
Director, Aims College Flight Training Center
356-0790 Flight Center
352-1501 Home
paz
9400S5
LANDAU INCORPORATED H.
43 HERRN LANE
CASTLE ROCK,CO 80104
January 3,1994
Ms. Constance Harbert,Chairperson
Weld County Commissioners
P.O.Box 758
Greeley, CO 80638
Mr.Paul Grattet,Manager
City of Greeley,Colorado
1000 10th Street
Greeley ,C0 80631
Mr.Kevin Bunnell,Manager,
Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority
600 Crosier Avenue
P.O.Box 727
Greeley, CO 80632
Close to twelve years ago we purchased approximately 60+ acres bordering to the
north the airport property adjacent to runway 9/27 and to the south Eighth Street
from Evergreen Aviation with a purposeful view to the future importance of the
Greeley-Weld County Airport.0ur efforts are substantiated in the rezoning and
annexation process with and to the City of Greeley,Colorado,which allowed the
incorporation of the airport property into the City of Greeley proper.Ceeding
right of way to the authorities allowed for the installation of potable water
and sanitary sewer pipe lines with the intend to serve the future airport ex=
pansion and our development intent.Next to uncontrollable economic forces it was
theinability of the airport improvements to handle larger equipment,which to this
day stagnated any effort to maximize the proper development of our property,sowith
tying up considerable liquid assets we invested.
The development of the new Denver International Airport indeed forms a challenge
to Weld County and beyond to respond to the inevitable need to grow into the
twenty-first Century and create a suitable environment for all of its citizens
and the demands placed upon them. We,therefore,whole-heartedly applaud any and
all efforts by the responsible elected and appointed leaders of Weld County to
commit to the construction of a new north-south runway 18/34 as the first clear
step to an exiting future for a vibrant economy and better conditions for growth
and opportunities for the impacted area.
Years ago,we saw and expected the progressive future of the county to chiefly
depend upon its ability to increase its mobility and technological advancement by
implementation of an agressive increase of the airport capacity and the ability
for larger aircrafts to operate it.We applaud and support the construction efforts
projected by the airport officials and hope that our past comittment,as well as
our future development intent for the property we own,will enhance the overall
airport complex and adlto the economic betterment of the entire area which will be
influenced by the expanded airport and its proposed new facilities.
•
. :71%-e—Al(71
Lee S.Bublitz, P.E. . _ _ .
/7
Claus B. Steenberg
_ 5743 North 79th Way . ,
94G08.3 Scottsdale, Arizona 55250
COLORADO
December 9, 1993
Mr. William J. Argo, CID
President
Greeley/Weld EDAP, Inc.
P.O. Box S
810 9th Street
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Bill :
Office of
Business Development
1625 Broadway,Suite 1710 This letter is intended as acknowledgement of the vital
Denver,Colorado 80202 role that airport facilities have come to represent in a
(303)892-3840 community' s economic infrastructure and competitive
(303)892-3848 fax position relative to other locations .
1-800-659-2656 TDD
Roy R.Romer The Colorado Office of Business Development routinely
Governor works with companies from throughout the U.S . and the
world with expansion or relocation interests in our
state .
We are noticing an increasing tendency for firms to cite
specific requirements relating to airport capabilities --
in terms of passo__;er and cargo han.L __.g, technical
infrastructure issues, as well as in connecting service
from outlying areas .
In addition, this office occas_ : .,—, handle, requests by
corporations which are specifically seeking existing
airport facilities or site development options for
aviation-related or manufacturing.
It is anticipated that the opening of the the new Denver
International Airport next spring should serve as a
cata] irst for regional economic growth well into the next
century. I am hopeful that northern Colorado will be a
prime beneficiary of this development.
Sjicerely,
John M. Mullins
Special Assistant to the Governor for Economic
Development
940085
LANDAU INCORPORATED
43 HERRN LANE • ,
CASTLE ROCK,CO 80104
January 3,1994
Ms. Constance Harbert,Chairperson
Weld County Commissioners
P.O.Box 758
Greeley, CO 80638
Mr.Paul Grattet,Manager
City of Greeley,Colorado
1000 10th Street
Greeley ,C0 80631
Mr.Kevin Bunnell,Manager,
Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority
600 Crosier Avenue
P.O.Box 727
Greeley, CO 80632
Close to twelve years ago we purchased approximately 60+ acres bordering to the
north the airport property adjacent to runway 9/27 and to the south Eighth Street
from Evergreen Aviation with a purposeful view to the future importance of the
Greeley-Weld County Airport.0ur efforts are substantiated in the rezoning and
annexation process with and to the City of Greeley,Colorado,which allowed the
incorporation of the airport property into the City of Greeley proper.Ceeding
right of way to the authorities allowed for the installation of potable water
and sanitary sewer pipe lines with the intend to serve the future airport ex=
pansion and our development intent.Next to uncontrollable economic forces it was
theinability of the airport improvements to handle larger equipment,which to this
day stagnated any effort to maximize the proper dt upment of our property,sowith
tying up considerable liquid assets we invested.
The development of the new Denver International Airport indeed forms a challenge
to Weld County and beyond to respond to the inevitable need to grow into the
twenty-first Century and create a suitable environment for all of its citizens
and the demands placed upon them. We,therefurm,whole-heartedly applaud any and
all efforts by the responsible elected and appointed leaders of Weld County to
commit to the construction of a new north-south runway 18/34 as the first clear
step to an exiting future for a vibrant economy and better conditions for growth
and opportunities for the impacted area.
Years ago,we saw and expected the progressive future of the county to chiefly
depend upon its ability to increase its mobility and technological advancement by
implementation of an agressive increase of the airport capacity and the ability
for larger aircrafts to operate it.We applaud and support the construction efforts
projected by the airport officials and hope that our past comittment,as well as
our future development intent for the property we owp,will enhance the overall
airport complex and ad( to the economic betterment of the entire area which will be
influenced by the expanded airport and its proposed new facilities.
Lee S.Bublitz, P.E. aus B.S ernh__,, .h.D.
/
940085
oa � urn
`c6' o ° c c 0° f>m
CLN � 00 p� ° � � � � � p 2 m r-
O R =. D 7 W ,, ca ° 7. co m
a _
� ao f of� M o T ,�• c P /� Z a
p o• p, O ° 0. w o• y
'cn �• row CD CCD • Cr o. o - 5• !rnT+ C
O
'D Own-
" n co f ...< 5° c°o ° A
y a a o ° < ° ° w
o n w x o o � v5 5 ° � ?J? LC
c n Cor
bd . p o 8 0 7 5 a <. cgo a' ro o m 5g 5 Lco 7. ro ^ S .
o o n o °O- O en o 5 � � OQc c 5 o. �� 'b sa ° d
on (oo rg o (so ar,�. �P °: ,°^. ,°. c2 2. 7 co .°^,non = ' w ox ry B < C
y
cE._q , 5 ee ° °-ha C O' O n . p, �. rn 7 .°y c cn O O~t< 7 O b0 N
o y o N ° ti C rs d 'o ^ ~
A °
it
w o• c— ry'O ° ° ° F To
111,
Z ,zro —c cti 1 E
cn ID
° 09 Q 0. p•`C H a O w O y -2° N
Q cl.)
• � c ado c5 a— a / as- fm -. -13 2 6.O. (/' 5 a . ?� =p D1 O
y a - - - t
Liao Sr! c •� 3 , a
Co . �, , °
rCD Cl.n ° C O o 7 O � m •D CI
(A '°+ np, N -, O' er °' w z 'Day
5 a-
•
oI••� 4o O 0 i as Gcr°ro s o c) 7 5 co o e. „.n' � 5
"°^r ^C2o53> ° 00. 500 -< 8 - 5CD � 7'•o .. aa gano'
5. " 0M5• ncEc ° c < oof-. < 20. 5yeon ^ aaw
w-. °., rThc ° O rn ° ^ ° 7 n cc, N ? on (➢ ° n Pi) 2 CD c < w a
c 0 2, 'a' s 2 < (_o v^, 0 5. 95; 5• 5. 7. O c -yaw P.' D `.
.-y r. 9a< 2f2» y. �O•hO' g O .O p ati y W .^"r.' W ° ,...5. S 2 N D. Q'
c 0 Y vn 5 o n H rs o wow 5. ° a w •• w. 9 • 5 o c c
cac �- .r 2 . 'b s, ° c'T F c°o co p' a c. `C 7• cro a G m Q
y �.p7 5 ma, Y ° °o S.e' w ". o Fn cn < w ° o rn .", ao' 0<
w n O•n O."O0 Do ? v°, W �G O 5 p W W.y ° 'CI 7 5 10
o I f& ,.., o 0 ^O, w o• O o ° �T 9 ry fro 6 ci 5..O3O r y CI. C m L)
coo coo o 2 ° a c• t w o ro `< j o a ° o x ry
m .. -.95 . , fn cos `c - of ° cod = o r
0 G 7 n " '-� o o a c°o arit II' vo' n. '"'Oa < 7 fro ^ c ° ^ t7 3C CD v
ea 5cr
O � c 5. 59. w C
° O 3 E c<o 'r] o roO. a• o o c°o .- tic a x y • N
y CD y t Fa pi) �, 5, 7 n post. ry 2 �°.' g ry r '< .-.%)
a r. i CD
f. o00 ,("oow5aOm CM S: 55 'occ I ,ti5 =° <D
O `G G r^, f co y 22 . 9n G a. o w ' d a 7 '' `< W
G O 94
,.a
llREHR!
WHO 11O11/1/1Y
A/HPOHl
P.O. Box 717• Giee/ey, CO 80982
3R3/.R56--9141 FAX303/8562643
The following information was prepared in an effort to address some of the most commonly
asked questions that are anticipated to arise, relative to the improvement of facilities at the
Greeley-Weld County Airport. We believe that this presentation may enhance the
understanding of all interested parties, and assist in the ability to make an informed and
objective decision regarding this subject.
Q. WHAT ROLE DOES THE GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT PLAY IN THE STATE'S
AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN?
A. The Greeley-Weld County Airport is the third busiest general aviation airport in the state
of Colorado. We have over 182,000 annual aircraft operations, and approximately 180
based aircraft. As far as the Federal Aviation Administration is concerned, we are the
premier general aviation airport in this region.
Q. WHY DO WE NEED A NEW RUNWAY?
A. To improve safety and increase air traffic capacity and capability. The 6,200-foot length
of runway 9/27 is too short to accommodate a large percentage of the jet aircraft fleet
needing to utilize the airport—particularly during the summer months. The 3,600-foot
length of runway 17/35 is completely inadequate to accommodate any jet aircraft users.
This certainly limits current and future potential capacity and capability of the airport.
The draft Colorado Aviation System Plan published November 11, 1993, by Bucher,
Willis, and Ratliff, an independent engineering firm contracted by the Colorado Division
of Aeronautics, reaches the following conclusions:
"Exhibit 3-4 shows that the current airfield capacity for Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
and Greeley-Weld County Airports will not be sufficient to meet demands. Fort Collins-
Loveland Municipal Airport is estimated to reach 60% of its airfield capacity before
1995, and by 2015 demand will exceed present runway capacity by approximately
8.4%. Greeley-Weld County Airport is forecast to reach 93% of its airfield capacity by
1995, and by 2015 demand will exceed runway capacity by 17.5%. All other airports
in the eastern plains are estimated to have sufficient runway capacity to accommodate
aviation demand throughout the planning period." In addition, this study recommends
"that a 10,000-foot long runway 16/34 be constructed, and a new terminal building
containing at least 6,000 square feet be built at the Greeley-Weld County Airport". The
long runway is recommended in order to "alleviate the airport's capacity deficit, and
accommodate large business aircraft".
SXYUN/COM-7128,/CXY/LS 7705.GWL047 W8 S7L VCR /128 AkVOS 735;7
3'00ss
Q. HOW IS THIS GOING TO BE PAID FOR?
A. A full 90% of the necessary funding to complete this project will come in the form of
a federal grant awarded by the Federal Aviation Administration from the Airport
Development and Planning trust fund. These are funds that have been collected d airline t rges.those h use ir taxes for the airports.)aviation fuels n By law, theseefunds are to be(In essence,
us d solely
those who use airports, pay
for aviation facility improvement purposes, and if not spent at our facility, they will be
expended at another airport. These funds are not conveniently available, however, the
Greeley-Weld County Airport more than qualifies for receipt of these funds, based upon
air traffic volume and the types of critical aircraft utilizing the airport. The remaining
10% will be shared by both the City of Greeley, and Weld County. Additional
matching monies may also be available through discretionary grants by
the
Colorado Aeronautics Board.
Q. WOULDN'T IT BE QUICKER TO ADD MORE LENGTH TO THE EXISTING EAST-WEST
RUNWAY?
A. No—for several reasons. Some of the local community perceives that this alternative can
be accomplished in less time than the others. This is not true—each alternative will
require a new environmental assessment, land acquisition, infrastructure relocation, and
construction scheduling. The environmental assessment considerations and
infrastructure relocation requirements are much greater for the east-west alternative, and
the pavement/construction scheduling is greater for the northwest-southeast alternatives.
The net time necessary for completion of each alternative is nearly identical.
Q. WOULDN'T IT BE LESS COSTLY TO JUST ADD MORE LENGTH TO THE EXISTING
RUNWAY THAN TO BUILD A NEW ONE?
A. No. Although more land is required for the northwest-southeast alternative, the
environmental considerations involved in the east-west alternative are much greater.
These environmental considerations include the demolition/relocation of eleven on-
airport structures (including the terminal building and eight hangars), the relocation of
at least six residences and/or farmhouses, removal/modification of oil wells,
reconfiguration of existing parallel taxiway, removal/reinstallation of approach lighting
system, closure or bridging of Cherry Avenue and possibly Bliss Road, among others.
In addition, in order to wind up with an "apples to apples" end product that would
provide similar results to the northwest-southeast alternative, a parallel runway would
have to be constructed and the existing crosswind runway 17/35 would have to be
extended to meet the FAA guidelines of an 80% ratio for primary runway/secondary
runway. This would necessitate the closure or bridging of Bliss Road. The final
outcome for comparable facilities is as follows:
2
901S5
TABLE VII
COST SUMMARY THREE ALTERNATIVES
GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT
IMPROVEMENTS Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III
E-W (9/27) N-S(17/35) NW-SE(16/34)
9,000 FOOT LONG RUNWAY COST COMPARISONS
PRIMARY RUNWAY $6,400,000 $ 11,300,000 $7,700,000
PARALLEL RUNWAY $ 1,500,000 $ 1,700,000 $0
CROSSWIND $3,300,000 $0 $0
BLISS ROAD BRIDGE $ 1,900,000 $4,500,000 $2,900,000
CHERRY AVE BRIDGE $3,000,000 $0 $0
TOTAL 9,000'NO $ 11,200,000 $ 13,000,000 $7,700,000
BRIDGES
TOTAL 9,000'WITH $ 16,100,000 $ 17,500,000 $ 10,600,000
BRIDGES
10,000 FOOT LONG RUNWAY COST COMPARISONS
TOTAL 10,000'NO $ 12,500,000 $ 14,000,000 $8,700,000
BRIDGES
TOTAL 10,000'WITH $17,400,000 $ 18,500,000 $11,600,000
BRIDGES
The alternatives under consideration will only provide equivalent airport capacities as long
as each concept is built with the three separate runways as designed—anything less will
decrease capacity.
Q. WOULD THE EXISTING TAXIWAY FOR RUNWAY 9/27 HAVE TO BE STRAIGHTENED
AND WOULD ALL OF THOSE BUILDINGS REALLY HAVE TO BE REMOVED UNDER
THE ENV ALTERNATIVE? ANY CHANCE OF A WAIVER?
A. Absolutely no chance of a waiver. Since the runway was originally constructed to serve
smaller aircraft, the 250-foot taxiway separation was determined adequate at that time—
with the understanding that when or if the runway were extended to accommodate
larger aircraft, the taxiway would need to be straightened to the uniform 400-foot
required separation from the primary runway. Additionally, when the Instrument
System was installed, there were numerous buildings located closer to the runway than
is normally allowed. The FAA agreed to allow these buildings to remain—however, FAA
has stated that any expansion to the west would require demolition and removal of
these structures (eleven—including eight hangars) in order to bring the entire airport into
compliance.
3
940085
Q. IS A GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT SUCH AS OURS REALLY IMPORTANT TO A
NEW BUSINESS LOOKING TO LOCATE IN OUR COMMUNITY?
A. Absolutely. The results of a recently published national survey showed that at least
10% of businesses consider proximity to a general aviation airport of primary
importance when considering locating to a community. We currently have over 40
"company" aircraft based at our airport, with thousands of other company aircraft using
our airport to facilitate their ability to conduct business in our community each year.
Q. SO IT'S NOT JUST AVIATION-RELATED BUSINESSES USING THE AIRPORT?
A. Quite the contrary. A majority of the businesses using our airport use aircraft to
supplement their operations. This includes small and large corporations, air ambulance,
cargo companies, law enforcement, aerial photography, atmospheric studies, pipeline
patrol, aerial application, air taxi,flight training, environmental study, rescue operations,
and the list goes on...
Q. SHOULD WE WAIT TO BUILD A NEW RUNWAY UNTIL WE HAVE COMPANIES
READY TO MOVE HERE?
A. THAT TIME IS NOW! Several of the companies that we are working with may be
willing to relocate here now, but will require assurances that we have immediate plans
to accommodate their future needs, as the type of aircraft that they utilize/service
continue to increase in size, and hence, necessitate facility capability and capacity
improvements.
Q. THE OPENING OF DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IS IMMINENT. WILL THIS
EFFECT US IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND AT OUR AIRPORT?
A. Positively. The largest airport in the world will bring large potential to the entire region
as well. We are currently in contact with nearly 20 different companies that are
interested in locating at our airport and in our community. All of these companies
consider our proximity to DIA a definite plus for their operation, and several deem it
essential. Some of these companies provide service/support functions to the airlines,
however, they find the cost of locating at DIA prohibitive, and find the proximity to
Denver and the quality of life we have to offer here as most attractive. In addition,
many of the businesses already located at airports in the Denver area such as DIA, Front
Range Airport, Centennial Airport, etc., are finding that it is becoming increasingly
difficult to survive because of increasing land and building rents, fuel prices, etc. This
"economic squeeze" is forcing them to pursue relocating at equally attractive, yet more
operationally efficient facilities such as ours.
4
940085
Q. ARE OTHER AIRPORTS IN THE AREA DOING ANYTHING TO PREPARE FOR THE
NEW BUSINESSES THAT MAY BE LOOKING TO LOCATE IN THIS REGION?
A. Absolutely. All of the major general aviation airports in Denver and the surrounding
region are improving and expanding runways and facilities to accommodate anticipated
future demands. This includes Front Range Airport, Centennial Airport, Jefferson
County Airport, and Loveland-Fort Collins Airport.
Q. ARE WE TOO LATE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE BENEFITS IN STORE?
A. No. It is unfortunate that we are off to a late start, but many of the economic benefits
to be realized from DIA are still to come. The real boom is anticipated to occur in the
next 4 to 10 years.
Q. ARE WE IN COMPETITION WITH THESE OTHER AIRPORTS FOR THE NEW
BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO LOCATE IN THIS AREA?
A. To some degree, yes. To clarify: some of these airports will get some new businesses
solely because of their geographic proximity to DIA. The other airports, including our
airport, may be in competition for those businesses that naturally gravitate to the vicinity
of a major international airport to provide support/services, as well as existing
businesses looking to relocate. These businesses expect to find safe, efficient, and
effective facilities. We have a lot of positive things in our favor—including favorable
weather(one-half snowfall of Denver), navigation aids, location within Urban Enterprise
Zone, access to highway/rail, labor-friendly community, favorable housing costs, and
others. Unfortunately, we are currently at a disadvantage in terms of existing runway
capability and capacity. We must improve our facilities in order to attract and
accommodate potential new businesses.
Q. HAVE WE LOST ANY BUSINESSES BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FACILITIES
THAT THEY NEEDED?
A. Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Since April of this year alone, we have lost the
potential relocation of at least three businesses to our community, due to inadequate
runway length and strength. This unfortunate fact can be verified by our local
Economic Development Action Partnership (EDAP) representatives, who have worked
closely with us to help bring these jobs to our community. It is unknown how many
other businesses never even contacted us, because of apparent inadequate runway
faci I ities.
Q. YOU MENTIONED RUNWAY STRENGTH—IS THAT IMPORTANT?
A. To some of the businesses that we are working with, it is crucial to the success of their
operations. Several of these operators utilize or cater to larger, heavier, jet aircraft that
require a greater pavement weight-bearing capacity than we are able to provide. That
5
914,fil 85
is another reason why construction of an entirely new runway surface of sufficient
strength is essential. Merely adding additional length to our existing runways does
nothing to increase weight-bearing capacity.
Q. WHAT MINIMUM RUNWAY LENGTH DO WE NEED TO PROVIDE TO BE EFFECTIVE
AND COMPETITIVE?
A. To truly be effective and competitive for business relocations as well as to provide a
trans-continental, mid-continent alternative refueling stop, a minimum 8,500 to 9,000
foot runway length is essential to accommodate the average executive jet aircraft. An
ultimate 10,000-foot length would likely ensure us national recognition as a major
alternative for the Denver metroplex—a hands down winner.
Q. WILL THERE BE MUCH OF AN INCREASE IN MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR THE NEW
RUNWAY?
A. Under any scenario, whenever there is additional pavement, there is some additional
maintenance. Maintenance on the runways is minimal, however, and will consist
primarily of snow removal and routine maintenance such as crack-sealing, etc., as
pavement ages. Financial impact for any maintenance will be minimized, as nearly all
loans/mortgages on which the airport currently makes monthly payments, will be
completely paid off before the new runway even opens. This fact in itself will "free up"
thousands of dollars in revenue each year that will more than handle any increases in
maintenance costs many times over. Additionally, discretionary aviation grant monies
are also available for this purpose as well. (We have received nearly $175,000 in the
past two years from the Colorado Aeronautics Board, and over $5.5 million in Federal
funds since 1980.) Finally, the increased capability/capacity of the new and longer
runway will enable us to market our airport as a mid-continent fueling stop, and a
perfect alternative for the Denver area metroplex. The increased levels and types of
aircraft anticipated will certainly increase revenues and defray airport maintenance
costs.
Q. WHAT TYPE OF ACCOMMODATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER THE NEW
ALTERNATIVE TO HELP THE LOCAL LANDOWNERS SURROUN DING THE AIRPORT?
A. Every effort possible will be made to lessen the impact on local landowners/farmers
surrounding the airport. Under the new alternative, NO HOMES will be displaced, NO
ROAD CLOSURE of Bliss Road is required (FAA has agreed to finance underpass if
necessary), NO water injection wells will be affected, and existing oil/gas wells will be
modified as able. In addition, every effort possible will be made to allow farming
operations to continue as close to the runways as is allowed/practical. It is not the
intention of the airport to take any excessive amounts of farmland out of production.
6
94G 1S5
Q. HOW WILL AIRPORT OPERATIONS AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION BE
AFFECTED?
A. Under the east-west alternative, construction of an extended runway 9/27 and
realignment of the parallel taxiway would cause closures of the airport during the
construction period. Under the northwest-southeast alternative, runway 9/27 and
runway 17/35 could continue to operate with virtually no closures for the entire
construction cycle.
Q. HOW ABOUT AIR TRAFFIC PATTERNS? ANY SAFETY OR NOISE PROBLEMS?
A. Expansion of the runway to the west would result in more intense aircraft noise in the
residential areas east of Greeley (existing residential areas would be within 1/2 mile of
ultimate extended runway). Flight tracks would be further west over residential/
commercial areas near downtown Greeley. Instrument approaches from the west would
be over a growing concentration of urban development. Most aircraft accidents are in
the approach-to-landing or close-in takeoff phases—making the east-west alternative
difficult to defend. The northwest-southeast alternative will place the larger, heavier
aircraft to the west of the new runway 16/34 over airport property and open farmland,
and the smaller aircraft operating over established, existing flight patterns east of the
airport.
Q. WHAT ABOUT ROAD CLOSURES?
A. Under the east-west alternative, for any length over 8,000 feet, Cherry Avenue would
have to be bridged, closed, or rerouted. Bliss Road would also have to be relocated
for extension of this runway, and would have to be bridged, closed, or rerouted for the
extension of the crosswind runway 17/35. Under the northwest/southeast alternative,
Bliss Road would be bridged or closed, and dirt County Roads 64 and 64 1/2 would
be closed or rerouted. Neither option can be completed without affecting some
roadways.
Q. WILL THIS REQUIRE INSTALLATION OF AN FAA CONTROL TOWER?
A. Not necessarily. The issue as to whether or not a control tower is required is strictly
predicated on the amount of air traffic volume an airport is experiencing. We do
anticipate increasing numbers of aircraft in the future, however, more importantly, we
anticipate that the type of aircraft that we will be able to accommodate will be
broadened. This plan does not consider any current plans for an air traffic control
tower. That issue can be addressed if necessary at a later date, depending upon existing
traffic levels at that time.
7
9400S5
Q. WILL A NORTHWEST-SOUTHEAST PRIMARY RUNWAY CONFIGURATION BE
CAUSE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CONTROL FROM THE DENVER AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC
CONTROL CENTER?
A. No. In fact—safety and service will be enhanced by the northwest-southeast runway
configuration. According to Mr. Randy Carlson, FAA Assistant Manager for Airspace
Programs/Special Projects, the northwest-southeast runway orientation would produce
a much safer air traffic environment by lessening the potential for conflict between
aircraft conducting flights under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) at Fort Collins-Loveland
Airport and the Greeley-Weld County Airport. An expansion to the west would
certainly increase the potential for conflicting traffic patterns, and it was felt that the
northwest-southeast alternative would certainly increase inclement weather capacity for
all of northern Colorado. In addition, the FAA stated that there would be no more
control/effect on operations than currently exists, and that with newly installed radar
sites in northern Colorado, service will be greatly enhanced for those who wish to
utilize these services.
Q. HOW HAS THE AIRPORT'S FINANCIAL HEALTH CHANGED SINCE THE AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN WAS DISCUSSED THREE YEARS AGO?
A. 1993 was the most financially and operationally successful year in the airport's history.
The second and third best years were 1992 and 1991 respectively. Operations are up,
revenues are up, expenses and liabilities are down. We have welcomed three new
businesses to the airport in the last eight months (with more on the way), and the
airport restaurant is operating extremely successfully. We have made several new
purchases of equipment and structures over the past year, and completed over $75,000
in pavement repairs/rehabilitation alone (with another $52,000 in pavement repairs to
be completed spring of 1994). Airport facilities have never been in better condition.
Q. IS ALL OF THIS ACCOMPLISHED AT GREAT COSTS TO THE TAXPAYERS?
A. No. The Greeley-Weld County Airport operates as an enterprise. We essentially
operate autonomously from either the city or county, however, each entity naturally has
an interest in the airport. In terms of daily operations, the airport is a self-supporting
government "business". We pay for all of our own maintenance, equipment, utilities,
services, salaries, and other expenses through the generation of revenues from aviation
fuel sales, hangar rents, ground leases, etc. The local government entities do assist in
providing local matching funds in the event of state and federal grant awards for capital
improvements.
Q. HOW DOES THE AIRPORT IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY—ECONOMICALLY AND
OTHERWISE?
A. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation recently stated that the aviation industry is the
"barometer of the health of this nation's economy". The airport and its associated
s
940085
businesses currently provide nearly 90 jobs directly on the airport with an estimated
additional 100 jobs created within the community as a result of the airport and its
operations. The existing/future job potential is phenomenal, and means more home and
automobile sales; increased revenues for restaurants, hotels, and merchants;
architectural and construction jobs; increased demand for materials/supplies, fuel,
pavement, utilities, and on and on. This all contributes to a brighter economic future
for our community and our future generations. Besides many of the reasons stated
previously, the airport provides a major transportation/service mode for our entire
county and region. Enabling quick access to medical facilities (NCMC) from outlying
regions, a port for shipping and cargo, a means of convenient access for businesses
visiting, relocating, or already based in our community, providing access to the fastest
mode of transportation available, rescue and patrol services, a base for agricultural
application operations servicing the entire county, etc., are just a few of the assets
provided by our airport to this community. In addition, in a recent study commissioned
by the Colorado Division of Aeronautics, it was stated for each dollar spent by general
aviation or a related business, an additional $1.52 was generated in economic activity.
The average visitor spends over $70/day in the local community (hotel, rental cars,
food, etc.), and that on a state-wide basis, general aviation generates an average
$37,500 in sales per aircraft per year. Airport construction projects are particularly
beneficial, because every dollar spent is highly leveraged with federal and private funds-
-each $1 spent generates an additional $2 in local economic activity. The economic
impact is projected to be 25 times the amount contributed locally. It is for these
reasons that we anticipate that the local financial support may be fully recovered from
the construction phase alone.
Q. WHERE DOES THE "LITTLE GUY" FIT INTO THE PICTURE? WILL THE AVERAGE
GENERAL AVIATION PILOT STILL BE TAKEN CARE OF?
A. ABSOLUTELY-POSITIVELY! The goal of airport management has been, and always will
be to provide a safe, efficient, and enjoyable environment for ALL OF GENERAL
AVIATION. This includes aircraft/pilots ranging from the smallest homebuilt aircraft and
trainers—to the most sophisticated corporate aircraft flying today. We will also continue
to pursue grassroots aviation through our support and sponsorship of the numerous
annual events conducted at our airport each year, such as the annual Experimental
Aircraft Association Fly-In, the Colorado Pilots Association Fly-In, the International
Aerobatics Club Competition, other aircraft organizational fly-ins and swap meets, and
several other airport-sponsored events—including the annual Colorado Air Festival. We
will continue to market this airport as the "general aviation hub" of this entire region,
targeting the attraction of businesses such as aircraft manufacturers, aircraft support
facilities (paint shops, avionics/instruments, upholstery, machining shops, etc.),
museums, flight training, and others. The new runway configuration will provide a
parallel runway for training traffic, as well as a greatly enhanced crosswind capability.
We feel that the new alternative can only complement the goals of our entire
community, including our loyal, based businesses and customers.
9
910085
Q. HOW IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT MY OPERATING COSTS AS AN AIRPORT USER?
A. We will never lose sight of the needs of the average general aviation pilot—WE AM
ONE TOO! The Greeley-Weld County Airport is a government enterprise. This means
we have to operate as a business. All costs of operation and upkeep are paid for by the
airport users themselves. Naturally, as airport facilities and equipment age,
maintenance costs go up. This leads one to believe that airport fees (hangars, land
rents, etc.) and profits from expendable goods (such as fuel sales) will have to be
increased. It is our goal to continue to keep all of these items at their current low levels
for the foreseeable future. An extra, longer, runway would allow us to increase
capacity/capability, and market the airport as a mid-continent fuel stop for transient
aircraft. We must attract new/additional customers to help defray overall costs, and
keep expenses down for all. - We can spread costs by increasing capacity, thus
increasing revenues. After all,who would you rather have pay for airport maintenance—
you, or a bizjet from California?
The objective of this document is to provide honest fads and answers which will guide all
interested parties in their consensus development and selection of an alternative which best
meets the needs of all parties. This report has outlined the need for greater airport runway
capacity, and the need to minimize the total improvement cost for the users and the
community. The concept having the least development cost and the least impact on the
surrounding community is the northwest-southeast alternative. This alternative has the least
long-term cost since the two existing runways satisfy the capacity, community relations, and
crosswind operational requirements, and the new runway shall meet capability requirements
of current and future aircraft as well. It is important to note that the basic premise behind
the alternatives presented in the plan is that the airport facilities will be developed to safely
and efficiently accommodate all airport users. We believe that the new northwest-
southeast alternative shall accommodate the needs of the community and national airspace
system throughout the 21st century and beyond.
10
940085
Hello