The 10-year expansion study for our municipal airport is encouraging and a good start on planning its future.  Any expansion needs to be operationally feasible and financially responsible.  Please consider the following to help “flesh” out the study further for a more complete understanding?

1. Of the 13,000 flight operations during 2019, how does that compare to the last 5 years?  Trending up, down, and why if we know?  The study says 2019 operations were 21% higher than 2018: why?  What about the prior years as well?  History doesn’t dictate the future, but seeing past trends, and understanding them, is helpful in planning a realistic future.

• Of the 13,000 flight operations during 2019, and the prior 5 years, how do they breakdown?  I.e. % for tourism, % by local industrial, % by non-local industrial, % for agribusiness, % other.  Is the mix shifting?  Is there a clear and sustainable critical mass to build on?  A dynamic picture of the market for planning is more informative than a static one.  To build credibly on industrial, agribusiness and tourism for growth, the potential needs to support that effort.  Trends and timelines give rich content to support or challenge a proposed strategy.

• We have 65 aircraft hangared onsite.  What % are local owned and what % are non-local owned?  Which ae for industry, for leisure, for agribusiness?  That helps paint a picture of just who is using the airport, and for what purposes.

• The study says “We believe that general aviation airports will play a central role in West Michigan. . . . “.  That’s a conclusion.  What is it based upon?  What are 3 or 4 examples of that “central role” and how do we envision that to remain stable, change, or evolve over the next 10 years as intended by the proposal?

• The study says “the city of Grand Haven and Chamber of Commerce has met with and interviewed key stakeholders to assess the direction, potential and long-term viability . . . . “.  Who are these “stakeholders”?  Not their names, but their profiles that establish them as stakeholders.  What quantitative tools were used to “assess the direction and potential”?  Or, was the assessment more qualitative or anecdotal than quantitative?  Either is fine, but conclusions and findings need to have a sustained, measurable basis to support them.  You don’t want to hinge an $18M investment on a hunch.

• Is it possible to get buy-in from Robinson and Grand Haven townships in addition to the Tri-Cities?  Those townships have large industrial bases, and if that is a target segment for expansion those companies should be drawn into the vision, also.  Why not go even as far south as West Olive and east to Allendale where industrial and residential growth is high?  What is the envisioned market radius to draw from, anyway?  Cast a wide net if we need a large user base.

• The study says “There are more than a dozen businesses adjacent to airport property . . . . “.  Of those 12 businesses, how many use our airport?  How often?  For what purposes?  The use by companies closest to the airport can be a baseline to extrapolate how others more distant would (or would not) also use it.  A point of reference is a starting point; you need that in any analysis (study).

• The study highlights many potential users of the airport; “Grand Haven State Park and hundreds of vacation rentals and cottages . . . . .”.  A survey of these potential users would be easy to conduct.  Was any survey of these target users taken?  It would be valuable information to support (or dispute) the 10-year plan.  Planning can’t be a pipe dream.  It must be grounded in facts and rigorous analysis.

• Were other municipal airports of similar attributes compared?  I.e. Holland Tulip; Manistee municipal; Delta County Airport in Escanaba; Pellston Regional; Gogebic–Iron County Airport; etc.  Michigan has over 50 similarly situated, small municipal and county airports.  Can we uncover best practices with a survey of some of them compared to ours?

1. The study points to local tourism, manufacturing, and agribusiness sectors for future growth.  Those sectors seem sensible, but the study in its current version lacks the metrics to support them.  The study needs to support the strategy with quantitative data, surveys, and analytics. 

1. The study suggests the cost of expansion ($18M) is carried (approximately) 90% by the FAA, 5% by the State, and 5% by the City.  What about operating costs (budget) to run it ongoing?  How do operating costs rise as the Phases lay in?  Has that been forecasted?  It’s not reflected in the study; it would be helpful.  You don’t want ongoing operating costs to be a millstone.

1. The study shows Phase 1 at about 10% of the expansion costs.  Phase 2 about 80%.  Phase 3 about 10%.  So, the plan is heavy loaded in the middle, the highest risk part.  Is there an exit ramp if Phase 1 runs over cost, or the hanger use doesn’t materialize?  Can you abort Phases 2 and 3?  Or is the Grant money an all or nothing path?  Once you launch, must you finish?  Could there be milestones along the way built into the plan where go – no go decisions can be made so future city officials and council bodies are not strapped with prior bad decisions; legacy burdens so to speak?

1. Would it be helpful to build a proforma operating budget of the airport with the expansion phases moving into place; probably a 5-to-10-year proforma?  And also a similar proforma operating budget of the airport without the expansion, only ongoing maintenance?  Does expansion indeed end up financially better, albeit with risk?  Or does a status quo at the airport show better financial results?  Comparing the two scenarios might be helpful.

1. The trend post COVID-19 is for more home workers, more Zoom type meetings, less commuting, and less out of town travel, air or otherwise.  Does this vison of airport expansion run counter to these trends?  These trends don’t appear to be temporary; the new normal.

1. Over the last 50 years the Muskegon County Airport has seen feast and famine.  It’s been on the ropes of closure as often as not.  Carriers have come and gone.  It’s a much larger facility.  If it finds itself oftentimes fighting for survival, what makes our much smaller airport a sure bet for expansion?

1. The community leaders in Holland are thoughtful.  They have a larger industrial and population base than us.  Holland is similarly far from Ford Intl Airport in Grand Rapids.  They are further from Muskegon County Airport than us.  Arguably, their metrics for airport expansion are even more favorable than ours.  Why hasn’t Holland pushed Tulip Airport in this direction?  We certainly can blaze our own trail, but it’s a fair question that will come up.  We should know the answer.