muskoka business and master plan final draft report-10may

BUSINESS PLAN AND MASTER PLAN

MUSKOKA AIRPORT

FINAL REPORT - 10 MAY 2013

Submitted to:

The District of Muskoka70 Pine Street, Bracebridge, Ontario, P1L 1N3

PED-9-2013-4B

TOC Page 1

BUSINESS PLAN ANDMASTER PLAN

MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Company co

nfid

ential. A

ll rights reserved

.

FINAL REPORT 10 May 2013

LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................ 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Description of Project ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Detailed Requirements and Scope ................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Study Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 3

1.5 Report Organisation ...................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Current Situation .................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Location and Context ..................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Existing Infrastructure and Facilities .............................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Asset assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Air Traffic Activity........................................................................................................................................ 24

2.5 Financial Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 35

2.6 Comparisons with Other Competing Airports in Area .................................................................................. 53

2.7 Stakeholder Consultation ............................................................................................................................. 60

2.8 Summary of Current Situation ..................................................................................................................... 68

3.0 Opportunities, Forecasts and Facility Requirements ............................................................................... 71

3.1 Airport Vision and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 71

3.2 Future Opportunities ................................................................................................................................... 71

3.3 Forecast Air Traffic Activity ......................................................................................................................... 78

3.4 Forecast Facility Requirements ................................................................................................................... 82

4.0 LAND Development AND INFRASTRUCTURE Plan ................................................................................... 90

4.1 Land Development Plan .............................................................................................................................. 90

4.2 Infrastructure Expansion and Maintenance (Capital) Plan ....................................................................... 109

4.3 Phasing Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 114

4.4 Very Long Term Plan .................................................................................................................................. 116

5.0 Financial ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 119

5.1 Status Quo Financial Forecasts .................................................................................................................. 119

5.2 Business Case For Land Development ........................................................................................................ 120

5.3 Establishing Appropriate Land Values and Lease Rates ............................................................................ 124

5.4 Business Case for Increasing Land Rates and Other charges ..................................................................... 125

PED-9-2013-4B

TOC Page 2


MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Company co

nfid

ential. A

ll rights reserved

.


6.0 Business plan ....................................................................................................................................... 130

6.1 Strategic Direction ..................................................................................................................................... 130

6.2 Marketing .................................................................................................................................................. 132

6.3 Action Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 134

6.4 Financial Forecasts ..................................................................................................................................... 134

7.0 GOVERNANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 137

Source: Final Report, Ontario Municipal Airports Data Collection Study, 2011 Update, Leigh Fisher Management Consultants ............................................................................................................................................................ 138

7.1 Alternative Governance Models ................................................................................................................ 138

7.2 It’s About More Than Governance ............................................................................................................. 145

7.3 Policy Makers and Management ............................................................................................................... 146

7.4 Governance at YQA – Moving Forward ..................................................................................................... 148

7.5 Implementing an Airport Commission at YQA ........................................................................................... 148

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 150

APPENDIX A: LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED ........................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX B: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED .................................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX C – Airport Zoning Regulations ........................................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX D – Instrument Approach Procedures ................................................................................................ 1

APPENDIX E: Opportunities modelling analysis .................................................................................................. 1

APPENDIX F: Additional WInd Analsysis Graphs .................................................................................................. 1

APPENDIX G: Aircraft Runway length information .............................................................................................. 1

APPENDIX H: New height guidance re wind turbulence ....................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX I: Typical Lot LAyouts ......................................................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX J: FINANCIALs .................................................................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX K: WIND ANALYSIS AND RUNWAY USABILITY ..................................................................................... 1

PED-9-2013-4B

Acronyms Page 1


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACRONYM MEANING ACRONYM MEANING

ACAP Airports Capital Assistance Program LDA Landing Distance Available

AIF Airport Improvement Fee

AMSCRs Aircraft Movement Surface Condition Reports

AOM Airport Operations Manual

ARCAL Aircraft Radio Control of Aerodrome Lighting System

ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting

ASDA Accelerated Stop Distance Available

ATB Air Terminal Building MRO Aircraft Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul

Avgas Aviation fuel (for piston aircraft) NAMO Northern Airports and Marine Operations

AWOS Automated Weather Observing System NDB Non‐Directional Beacon

CAO Chief Administration Officer NM Nautical Mile

CAP Canada Air Pilot NOTAM Notice to Airmen

CARs Canadian Aviation Regulations ODALS Omni Directional Approach Lighting System

CASRs Canadian Aviation Security Regulations PAPI Precision Approach Path Indicator

CFs Community Futures PFC Passenger Facility Fee (similar to AIF)

CFS Canada Flight Supplement RESA Runway End Safety Area

CFS – WAS Canada Flight Supplement – Water Aerodrome Supplement

RILS Runway End Identification Lights

CIIF Communities Infrastructure Improvement Fund

SMS Safety Management Systems

COPA Canadian Owners and Pilots Association TC Transport Canada

CRFI Canadian Runway Friction Index TOB Telecommunications Operations Building

DF Direction FInder TORA Takeoff Run Available

DME Distance Measuring Equipment

EMAS Engineered Material Arresting System VFR Visual Flight Rules

ERS Emergency Response Service VOR VHR Omni Directional Radio Range

FAA Federal Aviation Administration (US)

FEC Filed Electrical Centre

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

PED-9-2013-4B

Page i


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Muskoka Airport is located along Highway 11 within the District of Muskoka. The airport is located nearly midway between the towns of Gravenhurst and Bracebridge. The airport lands encompass an area measuring approximately 223 hectares (550 acres).

The airport is an important economic asset for the District, providing vital jobs in the District and being the Gateway to the area and its extensive tourism industry.

The previous Master Plans (1999) and Business Plans (1996) for the airport have now run their course and with the extensive pressure on the airport to expand its facilities due to demand for additional land development, among other pressures, the airport needs updated plans to guide its development and investment activities.

The new Business and Master Plan to be developed as part of this study will guide the development and operation of the Muskoka Airport for the next 15‐20 years. It will review the current state of the Muskoka Airport and make recommendations on how the District can capitalize on existing assets and opportunities to enhance the business and operation of the airport.

The project includes an examination of:

1. The airport business operation and financial status, potential, needs and requirements;

2. Airport infrastructure and facilities, needs and requirements;

3. Aviation business development, development area expansion and potential land acquisition; and

4. Airport governance.

CURRENT SITUATION

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

The Airport sits on about a 550 acre site, a significant portion of which is consumed by runways, taxiways, apron(s). Only about 22 acres of serviced land is currently available for commercial/revenue purposes. This land is currently all leased or sold (except for 2 remaining small lots). The Airport has additional land to service and develop, probably in the order of 40‐50 ac, depending on how it is developed and how facilities are allocated on the site. Large portions of the airports lands are environmentally sensitive wetlands, focused primarily on the east side, but with some similar but much smaller, environmental areas on the west side as well.

The Airport has a 6,000 ft x 150 ft runway, which until recently was probably the longest/widest runway within about a 100 mile radius. This runway is oriented North‐South. This runway has GPS approaches with limits of just 500 ft and 1.5 mi viz to both ends, as well as NDB approaches with similar limits. Weather data indicates these limits are exceeded some 5% of the time, so that the airport is not available due to weather during these periods.

The Airport also has a 2180 ft x 100 ft grass runway oriented East‐West that is available only during summer daylight conditions.

Other key facilities at the airport include:

• A terminal building recently upgraded and expanded in 2007, to include a unique memorial to Norwegian Air Force training on site during World War II;

PED-9-2013-4B

Page ii


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


• A partial parallel taxiway that had a pavement overlay and improvements in 2010/11, and associated connecting taxiways;

• An aircraft apron, expanded in 2006, with a number of other private aprons;

• A 5 bay maintenance garage originally constructed in the 1950s, with a supporting metal shed built in the 1980s; and

• A 3 bay equipment shed built in 2009.

Airport facilities in general are in reasonable shape and users are generally happy with them, other than:

• The main runway needs to be overlaid in the next couple of years, probably by 2015 to restore the pavement surface;

• The grass runway surface is less than ideal (and there are issues about its location and sizing), as will be discussed later;

• There are concerns about lack of a parallel taxiway to accommodate operations during the peak summer season;

• The aircraft apron can get congested on busy summer weekends.

In addition to the above, the Airport provides the following operations and services:

• The airport is open 24 hours per day year round, though traffic is very seasonal, with low volumes in winter;

• It has fuelling facilities, including jet fuel and avgas. This facility was installed by Esso and having such a brand is key to a good FBO operation;

• The airport is also a Customs port of entry, allowing it to cater to US and International traffic. In some cases aircraft may have to land here to clear before heading to another airport in the region that does not have Customs, such as Parry Sound;

• The airport also has a fleet of vehicles that it operates and maintains in support of its airport operations.

CURRENT AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY

The current traffic at the airport has some of the following characteristics:

• Runway use

• Runway 36 is used the most often, handling 56% of itinerant traffic;

• The short grass runway is currently used for 2% of itinerant traffic; used only by piston, small turboprops and helicopters.

• Itinerant traffic at the airport makes up 66% of overall traffic:

• Helicopters (no runway) represent 5% of this itinerant traffic;

• Approximately 25% of itinerant movements are IFR;

• Missed approaches, at 4%, are a relatively high % of itinerant movements, with many of these operations being primarily for training purposes;

• Local movements represent 34% of total movements. These are primarily training operations.

PED-9-2013-4B

Page iii


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


• Aircraft Category

• Piston aircraft are the largest users of the airport (65%) followed by turboprops (21%), helicopters (8.5%) and jets (5.7%);

• The most common large aircraft is the military C‐130 (Herc) and Jazz’s CRJ‐200.

• Aircraft Owner

• Sierra Fox Inc. (Ferrari Flight Training) used the airport the most (542 movements; average of 1.5 / day);

• 5 owners averaged over 1 movement / day.

Traffic at the airport is distributed and spread as follows:

• Time of Year

• Activity varies greatly over the year;

• The busiest month is July for both local and itinerant movements;

• The December to February period is very quiet.

• Day of Week

• Busiest days are Friday, Tuesday and Thursday for overall traffic;

• Itinerant traffic is highest on Friday, followed by Saturday.

• Hour

• Overall , year round average traffic peaks at 11 am with 5 movements on average, of which 2 are local;

• There are itinerant traffic peaks at 11 am, 2 pm, and 3 pm;

• In July, 9 am is the busiest hour with 12 movements on average, of which 6 are local;

• July Itinerant traffic peaks at 10 am with 7 movements on average;

• The Planning peak hour (95% percentile) has:

• 12 movements – itinerant;

• 28 movements – total (local + itinerant).

July

PED-9-2013-4B

Page iv


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Traffic at the airport over the last decade has been very volatile. The trend in itinerant movements by engine type is shown in the figures at right and below. Movements by piston aircraft have been generally declining over the last decade. These movements declined up till 2004, remained fairly steady between 2005 and 2010, and then appear to be lower again for 2011 and 2012. This trend for piston movements seems to have generally been reflected in the total movements, at least until about 2005 at which time the piston movements started a flat to declining trend and total movements began a steady upward trend.

Turboprop aircraft movements have been increasing steadily from 1997 through to 2008 with particularly strong growth in 2011 and 2012. Helicopter movements have been slowly increasing until 2009, but have declined since then. Jet movements increased to 2003 but have been fairly steady since then, though these have averaged about a 1% annual growth over the decade. Overall, the declines in piston movements over the last decade have been gradually offset by gains in other types, especially turboprops.

The trends we’ve seen in GA traffic at the airport are generally representative of what’s been happening in the GA industry overall, where GA has been slowly declining for 20+ years in Canada [source: Stats Canada movement certificates]. The declining segments in the past 10 years (2001‐2011) include:

• Piston movements, the largest segment of GA, have declined 40% (5.1% /yr);

• A similar trend was experienced in the US hours flown, which is down 4.1%/yr.

• Private aircraft movements have declined 26% (3.0%/yr);

• Local movements have declined 39% (4.9%/yr).

However, some segments have been increasing between 2001 & 2011:

• Jet movements have increased 8% (0.8%/yr);

• Turboprop movements have increased by 35% (3.0%/yr);

• These increases in turbine aircraft have also occurred in the US;

• Jet and turboprop movements have recovered strongly from the recession with 6‐7%/yr over 2009‐2011.

PED-9-2013-4B

Page v


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


The US FAA forecasts a slow decline in piston (‐0.1%/yr) and growth in turbine (jet & turboprop) of 4%/yr for next 20 years, with overall GA growth 1.7%/yr. In the US, 2/3rd of GA activity is related to business activity.

FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT

The airport’s operating revenues can be classified as:

• Aeronautical, and

• Non‐aeronautical.

Aeronautical revenues consist of the following categories:

• Aircraft Landing fees;

• Aircraft Fuel charges;

• Aircraft parking fees;

• Call out charges; and

• Other miscellaneous fees.

Non‐aeronautical revenues come from the following sources:

• Land rents;

• Office rents;

• Covered tie down rents;

• The airport Maintenance charge;

• Vending machine sales;

• Car rental fees; and

• Other miscellaneous charges.

The airport’s revenues have been increasing over the last 3 years, going from just over $ 440k in 2009 to over $ 550k in 2011, with an anomaly in 2010 due to the G8 Economic Summit that took place in Muskoka. The bulk of the revenues consisted of aeronautical revenues (over 75%), with non‐aeronautical revenues comprising less than 25%.

Airports usually try to achieve a balance between aeronautical revenues and non‐aeronautical revenues. This is because the aeronautical revenues can be more volatile as these are directly tied to airport traffic. On the other hand, non‐aeronautical revenues are much more stable as these relate to land leases, office rents, etc, which just do not vary as much, and in fact should continue to rise steadily with growth, with little chance of decline. By achieving a good balance, an airport can therefore lessen the fluctuations and volatility of its overall revenues. Having said the above, it is much more difficult for smaller airports to achieve a good balance than it is for larger airports which have access to more sources of revenue.

The airport’s operating expenses can be grouped into 3 categories:

• Salaries and wages;

• Equipment/travel fleet;, and

PED-9-2013-4B

Page vi


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


• Inter‐departmental charges.

Salaries and wages make up by far the largest component of total expenses at over 43%. This is normal at most airports.

The operating expenses have increased over the last 3 years similar to the increases in revenues. However, these increases have actually been less in percentage terms than revenues. These expenses have gone from just over $ 750k in 2009 to just under $ 850k in 2011, again with the anomaly in 2010 for the G8 summit.

As illustrated in the graph below, the airport’s expenses have clearly continually exceeded the airport’s revenues over the last 3 years, with a net operating loss of over $ 315k in 2009, but decreasing to a net loss of just under $ 290k by 2011. This improvement in the operating loss is good news for the airport.

By comparison, according to recent information available about other Municipal airports in Ontario, this loss is higher than the average loss at these airports of about $ 143k. But we need to remember that this is just an average, with some airports higher than this and others lower. As well, it is difficult to compare directly with other airports as they all tend to use slightly different accounting and allocation rules. Finally, Muskoka is the only airport we know of that sells land in Ontario. If we were to correct for this by converting the current sales to lease revenue instead, the annual operating deficit would drop by a further $ 40k+. So in reality there may be a much smaller difference between Muskoka and the Municipal average.

In addition to operating revenues and expenses, the airport also expends funds on capital improvements to the airport facilities. These capital expenses can be grouped into 2 key categories:

• Capital expenses for the expansion of the airport, including any new facilities, land development, etc; and

• Expenses required for the major maintenance and repairs to the airport’s facilities, including pavement overlays, building roof replacements, and other structural, mechanical and electrical upgrades.

PED-9-2013-4B

Page vii


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


The airport typically sets aside about 400k‐550k per year into the airport’s Capital Reserve Fund to pay for the improvements. This works out to about 1‐1.5% of the value of the current assets, which appears to be consistent with our experience of requirements at other airports (once capital assistance programs are factored out).

In addition to the capital that the airport contributes to the reserve fund to pay for the various improvements, the airport also has access to FedNor and other capital assistance grant programs. These grants can provide up to 1/3 of the funds required for qualifying projects. In recent years the airport has been able to tap into this fund for a variety of projects like a taxiway extension and terminal expansion. As well, the airport recently received funds from the Government of Norway to expand the terminal to house the Little Norway Memorial there.

There are a variety of other funding programs available to airports, such as:

• Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (NOHFC);

• Airport Capital Assistance Program (ACAP);

• Building Canada Fund (BCF);

• Various Infrastructure funds that come and go.

The airport does not have access to the first 2 of these as it is not in Northern Ontario per provincial guidelines nor does it have scheduled passenger service. But the airport would have access to the various infrastructure funds that come and go depending on both federal and provincial politics. Airports that have timely development ready proposals can take advantage of these programs to get up to 2/3 funding for key capital projects.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COMPETING AIRPORTS

Part of the scope of work for this study was to compare the Muskoka Airport with a number of adjacent airports that it feels that it competes with for tenants, traffic, etc. These airports include the following:

‐ Peterborough Municipal Airport;

‐ Lake Simcoe Regional Airport;

‐ Parry Sound Municipal Airport.

Compared to the three competing airports, Muskoka appears to have the following advantages:

• It has a high concentration of based aircraft servicing firms: full‐service;

• Its provision of specialty services is a plus;

• It has a competitive runway length and width, and good accessibility due to weather;

• It is a year‐round base for public services;

• It is a Customs port of entry (though all but Parry Sound have this);

• It has branded fuel (which is important to attract commercial/corporate sector and especially turbos and jets, though only Parry Sound does not have this;

• It has a good base of turbo and jet traffic to use as spring board for additional growth and for revenue purposes;

PED-9-2013-4B

Page viii


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Comparisons with Competing Airports Muskoka Peterborough Lake Simcoe Parry Sound

Owner/Operator District City/Private Operator City (80%)/Twp (20%) Muni.

Services Corp. Township/Airport Commission

Population 60,000+ (2011)

Seasonal pop can be double 118.975 (2011)+2.1% from 2006

446,063 (2011)+5.7% from 2006

42,162 (2011)+3.0% from 2006

Economic Sectors Tourism

Forest fire district (MNR)

Industrial, RetailRegional health centre

Post‐secondary

Industrial manufacturingMilitary (CFB Borden) Casino, Post‐secondary

Tourism, RetailRegional heath centre


Aerodrome Status Certified Certified Registered Registered

Runway (longest paved) 6,000’ x 150’ 7,000’ x 100’ 6,000’ x 100’ 4,000’ x 75’

Crosswind 2,200 x 100 turf 1,800 x 100 turf ‐ ‐

Visual Aids, Navaids and Approaches

Medium intensity lighting; PAPI Rwy 18; NDB Best Approach limits: 500 ft, 1.5mi

Medium Intensity lighting; PAPI Rwys 09/27; NDB Best Approach limits: 500 ft, 1.5mi

Medium intensity lighting;PAPI Rwys 10/28; VOR/DME Best Approach limits: 370/380 ft, 1.25mi

Medium intensity lighting; APAPI Rwy 36; NDB Best Approach limits: 500 ft, 1.5mi

Aircraft Services Branded Fuel / oil

Major / minor repair Catering

Branded Fuel / oilMajor / minor repair Catering by FBO

Branded Fuel / oilMajor / minor repair

Catering

Fuel / oil Major / minor repair

Passenger Services

New terminal (vending, Wi‐Fi)AOE/15 and Customs

Car rental& taxi (call‐out) Access to off‐site restaurant

New terminalAOE/15 and Customs

Taxi, car rental (call‐out) Restaurant

Executive passenger lounge(Free Wi‐Fi), AOE/24 and

Customs Car Rental x 3

Newly renovated business centre

Taxi, car rental (call‐out) Café

# of Based Businesses 9 17 8 11

# of Based Aircraft (CCAR) 76 137 45 54

Traffic (Total 2011) 17,019 33,717 20,580 7,805 (2009)

(Itinerant) 11,282 6,651 6,138 ‐

Land 223 h (550 acres)

Limited Developed land Sale / lease

276 h (682 acres)26.5 ha (57 lots) – 4 sites incl.

30 acres of serviced Airport industrial park

240 (595) Commercial Development Plan: 4 areas; serviced and un‐serviced lots

Recent private & commercial hangar development; training facility; industrial expansion

Financial ‐$287K in 2011 (excl. grants &

sale of land revenue) ‐$200K in 2009 ‐

‐$100K (if remove grant, sale of land, & tax revenue

Other Little Norway Memorial $28M expansion (2009 ‐ )

Seneca College flight training

$15M Expansion; “Airport Economic Employment

District”

Airport Industrial Park; numerous hangars; Float plane

base

PED-9-2013-4B

Page ix


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


On the other hand, it is weak in a number of particular areas, as follows:

• It currently does not have available developed land, though we will show some 35+ acres can easily be brought on stream quickly, once a plan is agreed to;

• It does not have as large a population base on which to draw activity from, though tourism is a growing sector to exploit; and

• It does not have the industrial base that airports like Peterborough and Lake Simcoe have.

So what can we conclude from this comparison?

• For its size and location, the airport has good competitive facilities, in many ways, as good, or better than its competitors, especially in terms of runway length/width/strength (only Lake Simcoe has better approaches in poor weather and Muskoka could easily match this).

• It has a very good concentration of local aviation businesses that can form a strong nucleus from which to expand;

• Given its population base, it has a reasonable amount of traffic to form a basis for future growth;

• Increased tourism should probably be a key focus for future growth and turbo prop and jet operations should be a focus within this.

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

Extensive consultations were undertaken for this study, much more than was originally planned. These consultations took the form of one on one interviews (both in person and over the phone) and self administered web‐based surveys. The following groups were consulted:

The general public (through self administered web based surveys);

In‐coming Pilots (via one on one interviews);

In‐coming Visitors (via one on one interviews);

Tenants and Businesses (with one on one interviews both in person and over the phone);

Economic Development and Tourism Staff (via email enquiries and phone follow‐up); and

Elected Officials and Senior District Staff (through one on one telephone interviews).

There were a total of 37 responses received online from the general public. These respondents tended to be very familiar with the airport and activities there as many of them appeared to be users of the airport. As a result they were very aware of the economic contributions of the airport to the local economy, to the services it offered, including emergency response like medivac, and they generally supported the expansion of the airport.

Some key comments from these stakeholders included:

The Airport should be run by non‐government or private group (with governance a key issue);

More promotion should be done to make people aware of the airport;

A restaurant would be a key asset at the airport that would attract visiting pilots and locals, alike;

The airport needs an appropriate plan to guide the future development of the airport.

PED-9-2013-4B

Page x


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


A total of 35 interviews were carried out with in‐coming pilots and in‐coming visitors. These groups were really similar in that sometimes pilots were interviewed (when they were the key travellers) and other times the visitors or passengers were interviewed (in cases where the aircraft was chartered or rented).

Some key characteristics of these users were:

Nearly 50% were visiting from the US, mainly nearby US States;

Many, again close to 50%, arrived via chartered or rented aircraft like NetJets, Shoreline, LJ Aviation;

The aircraft mix for these users was approximately 40% jets, 30% turbos, and 25% pistons;

Most (over ½) just stayed for less than 1 day, some 20% less than 1 hour, and approximately 25% stayed for up to 1 week;

Nearly ¾ of users chose the airport due to its proximity to their cottages, while other reasons included to clear Customs, or to visit friends or to play golf;

Most of the respondents were frequent visitors to the airport, with each accounting for up to an average of 10 annual trips, but then for 25% of the visitors, it was their first time;

All of these users rated the airport quite high, with an average score of 4.6 out of 5;

Key comments received were:

o the airport had friendly staff that provided good service (some of the best in the area),

o there was a nice museum;

o they liked the pilot lounge and the wi‐fi provided; and

o generally the airport facilities were excellent and didn’t really require any improvements (though some did mention things like an ILS, showers in the pilots lounge, tie‐downs, closer car rentals and a parallel taxi would be nice).

Information from tenants and based businesses at the airport was obtained through one and one interviews and through an online survey. A total of 23 responses were obtained.

The tenant and business respondents indicated that they saw the strengths of the airport as:

Location;

Runway length and orientation;

Economic potential;

The fuel services offered; and

The fact that it had a runway maintained year round.

They saw the key weaknesses of the airport as being:

Development restrictions (how and what they could develop);

Lack of available land to grow;

Lack of a restaurant;

Lack of a full length taxiway;

Management and political issues at the airport; and

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xi


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Lease policy and term issues.

The tenants wanted to see the following changes at the airport in terms or new facilities and services:

Credit card or keylock for self serve fuel;

Restaurant and / or a meeting area;

More organized events to draw aircraft in and promote the airport;

Operational and management changes, including a commission instead of municipal government

The acquisition of land to protect for future growth prospects for the airport.

Economic Development and Tourism staff noted the following from the responses received:

The airport is highly important for tourism to the area;

The economic sectors benefitting from airport were: tourism, construction, and aviation;

There is little to no manufacturing left in area and these were previously key users of charters at the airport;

There are a number of major tourism developments underway or planned in the area that could increase demand for tourism and for the airport.

Key issues that came out of the discussions with elected officials and senior District staff were as follows:

There was a general recognition of the economic importance of the airport;

There were concerns about its financial viability;

The funding formula vs the perceived benefit of the airport came up repeatedly;

The issue of selling vs leasing land was of interest to a number of the elected officials;

Governance and how to better manage the airport was a concern;

Many felt the Airport could be better promoted;

A sound Infrastructure plan for the Airport was of vital necessity; and

An on‐site restaurant would be a good idea for the airport.

SUMMARY OF CURRENT SITUATION AT THE AIRPORT

Based on our review, we believe that:

The airport has reasonable facilities for its current requirements;

These facilities put the airport in a good position to compete with other airports in the area;

But it needs additional developed lands to meet forecast requirements;

The existing tenant and business base at the airport provides a strong base from which to grow;

The existing traffic mix at the airport is strong and trending in a positive direction;

The airport financial situation is consistent with other Municipal airports, and this is improving, though;

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xii


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


The airport is challenged in terms of programs for capital assistance;

Current financial accounting and budgeting practices are sound and consistent with best practices;

Most users are generally happy with the airport’s facilities and services; though

There are a number of issues to deal with from the tenant’s and businesses at the airport.

OPPORTUNITIES

To identify potential future development opportunities at the airport, we took the following approach:

We used an investment attraction model developed in consultation with FedNor, for use by airports and communities;

We assessed investments, expansions and related activities at competing airports in the broader region to see what they were undertaking;

We considered general trends in the broader aviation industry and more specifically in the general aviation component;

We held discussions with key airport stakeholders to see what input they could provide;

We reviewed activities and trends at Southern Ontario Airports in general to identify how these could create opportunities for the Muskoka Airport;

Through this process we identified the following opportunities:

Enhanced maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services;

Hangar developments, both small T‐hangar type and larger corporate type;

Expanded flight training;

Aircraft Sales;

Expanded FBO activities;

Organized promotional events;

Increased tourism; and

Self serve avgas.

We identified, reviewed and subsequently rejected a number of other potential opportunities, such as:

Scheduled airline service, at least probably within the next 10 years;

Base for aircraft manufacturing &/or assembly, on a larger scale;

Post‐Secondary Aviation / Aerospace Training (incl. MRO, engineering, airport management, at least on larger scale);

Expanded base for public services;

Maintenance base for scheduled carriers.

The following are a number of key findings from our opportunities assessment:

• There are a lot of potential opportunities for the Muskoka Airport to pursue in order to expand operations and investment at the airport;

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xiii


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


• A lot of the potential development and whether or not it is realized depends on local entrepreneurs and whether or not they “step up to the plate”, and whether or not they receive support from the community;

• An important key to airport expansion is building on activities and uses you already have. This brings you better returns, and is easier than attracting new users, activities, etc.;

• The types of opportunities available need to be qualified in terms of the potential scale of activity; and

• To capitalise on opportunities the airport must first have the appropriate facilities in place, or at least a plan to develop these facilities and then it must aggressively market itself and pursue the potential opportunities.

FORECAST ACTIVITY

We developed forecasts for future aircraft movement activity at the airport under three different scenarios:

Status quo:

o This assumed that there would be no additional development at the airport, that no tenants would leave as a result and that traffic growth and mix would continue according to recent trends;

Medium growth case:

o This scenario assumes that land development will occur and that this development will be at a 25% slower pace than historical, with only 15 acres of land developed over the next 20 years.

o There will be additional traffic growth at the airport over and above the trend line based on the projected mix of new tenants and new uses.

High Growth case:

o This scenario assumes that land development will occur at a faster rate (+25%) than historical, with up to 25 acres of land developed over the next 20 years;

o There will also be additional traffic growth at the airport over and above the trend line based on the projected mix of new tenants and new uses.

The implications of these levels of development on air traffic at YQA are shown in the following figures.

For itinerant movements:

The Base Case forecast has these growing from 12,250 to 13,350 movements in 20 years;

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2012 2017 2022 2027 2032

Itinerant MovementsBase Case Medium High

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xiv


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


The Medium Case forecast projects these to grow from 12,250 to almost 14,600 in this same period; while

The High Case suggests itinerant operations could approach 16,000 in 20 years.

With respect to Total Movements:

The Base Case forecast grows these from some 16,450 to about 18,100 in 20 years;

The Medium Case forecast has these growing from 16,450 to over 19,000 in this same period; while

The High Case suggests total operations could approach 22,000 in 20 years’

In terms of aircraft types, we forecast that:

Jet traffic will continue to grow at a higher rate than total traffic and account for a higher proportion of total traffic under all scenarios than today;

Turbo‐prop traffic will experience a similar trend; while

Piston‐engine traffic will decline under all scenarios, but moving from the base case to the medium to the high case, this segment of traffic would consistently account for higher piston volumes (but again less than today, even in the high case);

Local movements would grow from today’s levels, but only marginally in the base and medium cases, with much higher activity in the high scenario.

Year 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2017 2022 2027 2032

Redevelopment Scenarios Medium Case High Case

Jet engines 683 849 1,026 1,237 1,398 888 1,121 1,335 1,561

Turbo-propellers 2,772 3,189 3,689 4,330 4,796 3,309 3,917 4,509 5,172

Piston engines 7,861 7,436 7,148 7,106 6,675 7,703 7,587 7,431 7,372

Helicopters 934 1,077 1,259 1,491 1,708 1,100 1,297 1,514 1,770

Local 4,197 4,697 4,724 4,780 4,780 5,900 5,946 5,983 6,029

Total 16,447 17,247 17,847 18,944 19,358 18,899 19,868 20,772 21,904

While these traffic forecasts still do not represent significant growth, even in the high case at just 30% more traffic than today’s levels, the segments that have significant revenue opportunities are in fact growing the fastest and will impact the revenue side much faster and better than the cost side (to be illustrated later).

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

2012 2017 2022 2027 2032

Total Movements

Base Case Medium High

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xv


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


FORECAST FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

Based on our review of existing facilities, their capacities and comparing these with the forecast traffic, both in terms of volume and mix we feel that the following improvements need to be made to the airport’s facilities:

RUNWAYS

The existing main runway at the airport (18‐36) is more than adequate in terms of length and width. However, its orientation is not necessarily the best to satisfy the requirements of the full range of aircraft serving the airport.

Transport Canada recommends that an airport’s runway system provide at least 95% usability for the aircraft that it is intended to serve. While the main runway provides an estimated 98.6% coverage for larger aircraft, it only provides 95.4% usability for the lighter aircraft that currently comprise over 75% of aircraft movements at the airport. This usability does not consider gusts, which would reduce this 95.4% figure well below 95%. Most airports use this usability criterion as a base level that needs to be exceeded and consequently they try to maximize the actual usability, as opposed to using this 95% figure as a target to be achieved.

On the basis of the winds at the airport and the above discussion, we therefore feel that a crosswind runway at the airport is a basic requirement. This crosswind runway function is currently met with a grass runway oriented as 09‐27. However, to maximize the runway system availability the crosswind runway should be paved and eventually extended.

As a result of various discussions, comments, previous work, and an assessment of land development options available, we looked at a number of possible orientations for a crosswind runway and concluded that any orientations from 09‐27 around to 12‐30 would provide a similar additional usability to the existing runway. In terms of the length of this crosswind runway, a maximum length of 2,800 ft should be more than adequate to handle the range of smaller aircraft serving the airport, at least over the medium to long term.

TAXIWAYS

The airport has a very limited taxiway system, comprising a partial parallel taxiway along the north‐west half of the main runway, with a number of connecting taxiways. With most of the main developments at the airport concentrated at this north‐west corner and the main aircraft apron in the south‐west corner, the lack of a full parallel taxiway to this runway is manifesting itself in increased delays and comments from both local users and visiting pilots.

Over the long term, a full parallel taxiway should be provided to the main runway to be able to better handle aircraft operations on the ground. However, we feel that the provision of a paved crosswind runway (in a 12‐30 configuration) would defer the need for a full parallel taxiway well into the future.

AIRCRAFT APRON AND PASSENGER TERMINAL

The aircraft apron is currently at or over capacity for a number of very busy weekends in the summer. While space should be protected to the north and south of the existing apron for future expansion, we feel that demand management techniques should be employed first to defer the need for any expansion.

The current passenger terminal should be more than adequate to serve forecast needs for the entire 20 year period of this plan. The only proviso to this would be if the airport were to obtain scheduled airline

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xvi


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


service, which is considered unlikely, at least in the short to medium term. Should the airport become a base for scheduled airline services, then both the terminal and the apron would need to be expanded.

NAVAIDS

The current list of airfield lighting, navaids, and instrument procedures for the airport is probably sufficient for the current traffic levels at the airport. However, if the airport wants to be aggressive in growing its traffic and especially some of the important elements like jets and larger turbo‐props, it would benefit from the implementation of LPV approaches, installation of RILS and in the installation of a PAPI on Runway 36.

LAND DEVELOPMENT

The single largest deficiency in current facilities at the airport is in the area of land for development. There is effectively no land, other than 2 lots left remaining undeveloped, and these lots are being pursued by a number of current tenants very eager to develop them.

We have prepared the forecasts below for future land requirements. As it is difficult to forecast these requirements because the variables are quite wide ranging, from how aggressively the airport may wish to pursue future growth, to how aggressive the competition may react, we have produced 3 scenarios.

Total additional land under the 3 scenarios is forecast to range from as little as an additional 15 acres to as much as 35 acres over the 20 years of the plan.

Additional Land Requirements by Time Period (Acres)

0‐5 years 6‐10 years 11‐15 years 16‐20 years Total

Medium Growth 5 4 6 15

High Grow 9 6 5 5 25

Very High Growth 10 10 8 7 35

OTHER FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Other facilities and services at the airport should generally be adequate for the 20 year period. For instance, the current airport access is forecast to be more than sufficient for a very long time. As well, the current approach to providing utilities, such as water (from wells) and sewer (through septic system), should continue to serve the airport well, unless a policy decision is made either at the provincial or municipal level that would encourage “central” type systems.

LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN

To respond to the need for additional land for development at the airport, we developed a number of options, starting with previous work that had been undertaken by District/Airport Staff.

After carefully assessing each of the options on the basis of costs to construct, potential revenues, amount of land provided, risks, constraints and anticipated economic impacts, we concluded that Plan B‐R would best satisfy the airport’s requirements over the 20 year planning period for this study.

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xvii


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Key features of this plan included:

The relocation of the grass runway further north and re‐oriented to a 12‐30 direction;

Development of a 9‐10 acre subdivision just south of the existing MAR development capable of accommodating large MRO facilities to smaller T‐hangars and aircraft tie‐downs;

Development of an additional 25+ acre subdivision in the south east corner of the airport, capable of supporting similarly wide ranging uses; and

Creation of some additional landside type lots along Beaver Creek Road;

Total estimated costs would be in the order of $ 5.3M for the land development aspects (Including taxiways, but excluding land acquisition) and about $ 1.1 to 1.5M to pave the grass runway (depending on length chosen).

According to our forecasts for future land development requirements, this option should be capable of meeting forecast requirements to the end of the planning period, even under a very high growth scenario.

PLAN B-R

However, we feel that the airport also needs to consider a bold, very long term plan in order for it to adequately compete with airports in the same area and in order to be able to attract new progressive companies that may have the capabilities to contribute significantly to the local economy.

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xviii


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


VERY LONG TERM PLAN

Key features of the very long term plan include:

Building upon the development plan proposed for the first 20 years;

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xix


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Designating the lands to the west of the airport (and east of Highway 11) for mixed industrial (which they are already zoned for) and aviation related uses;

Protecting for the possibility of realigning the Gravenhurst Parkway to be re‐routed through these new lands, so as to be the primary access to this future development, from both the north and the south;

Realigning the existing north‐south portion of the Gravenhurst Parkway further to the west and re‐purposing it to act as a service road to open up new lots by extending the current westside developments further to the south to front along the extended full parallel taxiway; and

Making provision for a possible future extension of Runway 12‐30 further to the west into the area vacated by realigning the Gravenhurst Parkway. This could provide a runway length in the vicinity of 4,500 ft +/‐ .

INFRASTRUCTURE (CAPITAL) PLAN

The airport has extensive infrastructure facilities, including:

Runways, taxiways, aprons, and the associated electrical (lighting),

Various buildings, including the terminal, maintenance building, and various equipment storage buildings, and

A varied equipment fleet required to operate and maintain the airport.

The airport is fortunate in that this study has identified that this inventory of current facilities, other than the need to provide a paved crosswind runway, some improved navaids and additional taxiways and roads to service the proposed new land developments, should be capable of satisfying airport requirements for the next 20 years. But all of these facilities, whether the existing or the new ones, require the occasional major maintenance and repairs in order to continue to provide useful service.

Many of the current airport facilities have been recently upgraded or expanded, and the airport has identified that the only major work still left to be done is a major overlay to the main runway, planned for about 2015 at a cost of close to $ 4M, a roof replacement of the maintenance garage at an estimated cost of $ 85k, planned for 2013 and a number of miscellaneous pavement repairs over the next couple of years.

We estimate that the replacement value of airport facilities is probably in the order of $ 25M‐ $30M. Based on our experience at other airports, the airport should be spending some $ 0.5M annually on average to upgrade, maintain and repair these facilities. This would work out to about $ 10M over the next 20 years.

As part of this work, we have identified a rough “maintenance and repair” program that works out to nearly $ 6.5M over the next 20 years (or about $ 7.5M in inflated dollars). Key features of this program include the previously mentioned overlay of the main runway (which by itself is more than

half of the cost of the total program), and other various overlays to existing taxiways, aprons, roof replacement on the terminal building, and other structural/mechanical/electrical upgrades, as well as electrical upgrades to the airfield.

FINANCIAL PLAN

In order to determine whether or not the airport could afford to pay for many of the various improvements presented above, especially the land development related investments, we constructed a number of financial models, one for each of the development scenarios previously presented under the

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xx


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


assumption that current rates and charges would remain relatively unchanged and an additional scenario that modeled the implications of raising various rates and charges, especially the land sale and land lease rates.

Some interesting results from the financial modeling are as follows:

Under a status quo scenario, where the airport chooses not to expand any facilities and just to continue operating as today, the annual operating deficit would go from just over $ 300k today to just under $ 100k by the end of the 20 year planning period. This would result in a cumulative operating deficit over the 20 years of over $ 4.5M.

If the airport chooses to develop along the lines of the medium growth case (still keeping current rates and charges), an operating surplus could be expected by around 2029/30 with the operating surplus growing to just under $ 70k by 2032. The cumulative operating deficit over 20 years would be just under $ 3.0M, a significant improvement over the status quo case.

Under the high growth scenario (again still keeping current rates and charges), an operating surplus could be expected as early as 2021/22 with the operating surplus growing to over $ 600k by 2032. In this case there would be a cumulative operating surplus over 20 years of close to $ 2.2M, again a significant improvement over the status quo case, but over the medium case as well.

Significantly raising the land sales rates and land lease rates by close to 50% (considered the true market value of airport lands) and adjusting other rates upwards more marginally provides a significant improvement in the case of the medium growth scenario, with the operating surplus eliminated by about 2021/22, with an operating deficit of close to $ 150k by 2032 but with a cumulative operating deficit of over $ 1.3M.

Extrapolating for a high growth scenario (as this was not modeled) with revised rates would indicate that an operating surplus must be achievable several years earlier (about 2020) and that the cumulative operating surplus over 20 years could approach $ 4M.

This is all positive news, but when we add in the capital requirements as well, we find that in none of the scenarios can we cover the full capital costs of the airport. The table below summarizes this.

COMPARISON Status Quo Medium Growth High Growth Medium GrowthBase Rates Base rates Base rates Revised rates

(Cumulative over 20 years)Opening Reserve in 2012 1,538,706$ 1,538,706$ 1,538,706$ 1,538,706$ Retained Earning (Ops) 4,924,690-$ 2,920,234-$ 2,226,070$ 1,307,924-$ Revenue from Land Sales 828,159$ 1,301,117$ 1,217,399$

Revenue from Development Levy 26,549$ Planned Capex (Development/Capacity) 5,152,496-$ 7,465,289-$ 5,152,495-$ Planned Capex (Maintenance) 7,429,585-$ 7,429,585-$ 7,429,585-$ 7,429,585-$

Projected Surplus / (Shortfall) 10,815,569-$ 13,135,450-$ 9,828,980-$ 11,107,350-$

NPV (Surplus / (Shortfall) 6,448,198-$ 8,656,543-$ 7,353,954-$ 7,483,970-$

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xxi


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


From this financial analysis we suggest the following lessons:

Regardless of the financial scenario, the airport will need to continue to contribute in the range of an average of about $ 500,000 per year into the airport reserve fund, much as it has been doing in past years;

Considering only funding shortfalls for the airport, the status quo, whereby no money is invested in expanding the airport facilities, but money is spent on maintaining those already existing, is a feasible option, as this results in the lowest overall NPV of the scenarios actually modelled, and would be similar to the projected best case NPV with high growth rates and increased land sale prices;

Investing in only modest expansion of the airport without adjusting current rates (many of which are too low in absolute terms, but also too low in comparative terms with other airports), does not appear to be as attractive as the status quo.

Major investments in additional facilities at the airport, combined with aggressive land development and increases in key fees such as land sales, land leases, among others, can pay large dividends and in the end more than pay for themselves, as illustrated with the projected NPV of a High Growth case with increased fees;

Aggressive land development and marketing, both of which can attract additional traffic to the airport, combined with appropriate increases in fees charged across all aspects of the airport’s operations, can result in achieving airport operating surpluses as early as 2020, depending on the scenario;

Any of the “investment” related options, would pay additional dividends to the community in terms of the economic impacts of the associated investments, whereas a status quo option would forgo the potentially significant economic spin‐off economic impacts of these investments, both on an initial investment basis, as well as continued contributions due to operations;

A more aggressive land sale policy should be considered as a means of lowering the initial capital investment shortfalls, as once many of these land development investments are well underway, the airport should be in position to generate annual operating surpluses (2020 +/‐).

BUSINESS PLAN

The business plan comprises the following elements:

The Strategic Direction;

A Marketing Plan;

An action Plan; and

A financial plan.

The District has continually re‐affirmed the strategic direction for the airport that it “….is a commercial General Aviation (GA) airport that promotes and supports the social and economic needs of the District of Muskoka”.

Within this, the District must lay out a more detailed role statement together with goals and objectives, as well as identifying key success factors in order to have a more consistent vision and measurable parameters with which to work.

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xxii


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


On the marketing side, it is important to clearly identify:

The target market for the airport;

Understand how the 5 P’s of marketing should be applied; and

Have an appropriate and very strong brand to use in the marketing of the airport.

An action plan must be developed to implement all of the aspects of the overall business plan. Key elements of the action plan should be as follows:

SHORT-TERM (2013)

Approve development plan B‐R;

Increase land lease and sales rates as well as the AMC;

Confirm development intent of existing tenants and negotiate agreements

Acquire land to the east to permit grass runway relocation

MEDIUM TERM (2014-2018)

Move to an Airport Commission operating structure;

Reduce landing fee exemptions from 5 tonnes to 3 tonnes for based aircraft, and from 3 tonnes to 1 tonne for visiting aircraft

Approve a new one‐time development service fee similar to (but slightly less than) Lake Simcoe’s (waived for Phase 1 i.e., implement before 2019;

Approve a new one‐time airport development permit fee similar to (but slightly less than) Lake Simcoe’s (waived for Phase 1 i.e., implement before 2019);

Approve a new one‐time airport development levy similar to (but slightly less than) Lake Simcoe’s (waive for Phase 1 i.e., implement before 2019)

Develop comprehensive marketing program, including marketing materials (brand message, logo, print materials etc.), key messages, advertising plan,

Implement land development program on a phased approach i.e., line up customers prior to developing the land

With respect to the financial forecasts for the business plan, it is demonstrated that the most positive financial scenario would be to aggressively develop and market new commercial lands. To be conservative however, the financial targets/forecasts should be based on a medium development and traffic scenario. However, additional revenues should be expected to be achieved through a more aggressive land development timeline, complemented by aggressive marketing efforts.

GOVERNANCE

The airport is owned and operated by the District of Muskoka. The District comprises the Towns of Bracebridge, Gravenhurst, Huntsville, and the Townships of Georgian Bay, Muskoka Lakes and Lake of Bays. The airport is operated (managed) within the Planning and Economic Development (PED) department of the District. The District is responsible for operating, marketing and developing the airport. This can be referred to as the Regional or District Model.

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xxiii


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


The current governance structure is illustrated in the figure below.

Airport staff report through the Commissioner PED who reports to the District Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). For airport matters, the CAO and the Commissioner of PED report to District Council through the Planning and Economic Development Committee. This PED Committee also receives advice from a 13 member Airport Advisory Committee chaired by a District Councillor and comprising other District Councillors, and interested community members including commercial tenants, local pilots, among others.

There are a variety of airport governance models, as follows:

Local Government ownership and operation

o Regional / District owns and operates (current situation)

o Individual municipality owns and operates

Local Government owns and independent not‐for‐profit organization operates

o Airport Commission

o Airport Authority

Local Government owns and private sector operates

Private sector owns and operates

The particular models in place at any specific airport tend to be as a result of both history and choice. Some key factors influencing the choice between the different models are:

The degree of financial self‐sufficiency. Generally, governments do not like to provide capital or operating financial subsidies without having a significant say in how the airport is managed. Accordingly more of the smaller airports that are not self‐sufficient tend to be government operated and more of the large airports have varying degrees of autonomy.

Degree of autonomy. There is a broad range of ownership models and the degree of autonomy in decision making is equally broad. Autonomy tends to be closely linked to financial self‐sufficiency.

District Council

CAO

Other Department s (HR, Legal, Finance, Engineering , trades, property management etc.)

Airport Manager

Full Time Airport Staff

Planning & Economic Development (PED)

Airport Advisory Committee

Seasonal Airport Staff

Planning & Economic Development Committee

Airport purchases internal services from other departments

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xxiv


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Labour practices. There can be significant differences in public sector and private sector labour practices, and this can influence the ownership model.

There is no single structure that will best apply to the management and operation of municipal airports. It is highly dependent on a number of factors, including:

Scope and complexity of activities;

Actual benefit derived by the municipality;

Level of service decided upon;

Interest in the community;

Municipal organization itself;

Number of participating municipalities;

Influence of airport users;

Willingness of volunteers from inside and outside of the aviation community to contribute, participate and serve on an advisory committee;

Degree of cooperation among participants such as Tourism, Economic Development, Chambers of Commerce, etc.; and

Entrepreneurial spirit / business orientation of airport management.

Successful airports, regardless of ownership or operations structure are characterized by:

A strong commercial focus, with an emphasis on maximizing non‐aeronautical revenues;

An entrepreneurial focus in the airport management team;

A strong customer service focus;

Effective links to the community;

A commitment to consultations and a partnership approach with aircraft operators and other key stakeholders; and

Effective planning processes with publicly available planning documents.

It is the consultant team’s opinion that the two most viable options for YQA are the Status Quo, and the creation of an Airport Commission.

The status quo is working; however it is understood that opportunities are sometimes lost or stalled due to delays in the decision making process.

Having the airport operated by an incorporated Airport Commission could offer the following added benefits:

Subject matter experts in the policy maker role. The Commissioner / Chairman would have an aviation background and would be dedicated to proactively promoting the airport;

Broader representation from key stakeholder groups;

The planning and decision making would be put in the hands of a smaller group, who are subject matter experts with a single focus and not being pulled in many directions. Decision making would be quicker and subject matter experts would not need to be brought up to speed on technical issues;

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xxv


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


More commercial focus;

Council being freed from external lobbying efforts;

Council would continue to be represented in the policy maker role, would still be in control of budgets, and would be kept informed / updated regularly through formal reporting.

The study team recommend that the District seriously consider moving to an Airport Commission model to operate the airport. To arrive at a final decision they should consult widely with other airports. They should especially consult with airports that have moved from the municipal model to the Airport Commission model, to learn from their experience and to gather valuable insight into the conversion process.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We make the following recommendations with respect to this study:


1. Land development at the airport over the next 20 or so years should be per Plan B‐R. Key

features of this plan are:

a. Relocate the grass runway ;

b. Carry out additional surveys to determine what length of runway might be possible

without the need to purchase additional lands to the east, with the intent of achieving a

runway of between 2,000 and 2,200 ft;

c. If necessary, purchase land to the east of the grass runway to accommodate a length at

least as long as the grass runway is today;

d. Develop the west part of the area vacated by the grass runway into a 9‐10 acre

subdivision with a mix of large, medium and smaller lots;

e. Develop the east lands to the south of the new grass runway into a new 25 acre +/‐

subdivision providing a mix of large, medium sized and smaller lots;

f. Develop a number of lots along the north side of Beaver Creek Road for aviation or even

non‐aviation related landside type uses (those not requ

g. iring access to taxiways);

h. Develop lands in the area east of the threshold of Runway 18 for covered tie downs

using Quonset hut type construction;

i. Develop some area between the parallel taxiway and the north end of Runway 18 for

low‐cost, uncovered tie downs;

j. Phase the land development so as to meet the anticipated demand in a just in time

manner.

2. Over the very long term, the airport should consider mixed use of the lands located west of the

airport between the Gravenhurst Parkway and Highway 11. The key features of this very long

term plan would include the following:

a. Relocation of the Gravenhurst Parkway to the west to provide the primary means of

access to the industrial lands located there;

b. Designating the lands to the west for mixed industrial and aviation related uses;

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xxvi


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


c. Closing portions of the current Gravenhurst Parkway and re‐purposing other portions to

provide land access to both existing and new developments areas;

d. Relocating the abandoned north portion of the current Gravenhurst Parkway alignment

further west to accommodate future development all along a future parallel taxiway

along the westside of the main runway (18‐36);

e. Making provision for the potential extension of the crosswind runway (12‐30) further to

the east, permitting a total length of some 4,500 ft +/‐.

f. This long term plan should be revisited and better defined in the next 10 year update to

this Master Plan or at such a time that any development proposals are brought forward

to develop the lands to the west.

INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

3. Pave the grass runway initially to about 2,000 ft or whatever length may be possible given the

constraints of the lands to the east.

4. Give consideration to paving the new runway (12‐30) to a length of about 2,800 ft in order to

provide better accessibility to and usability of the airport for smaller aircraft that cannot sustain

higher crosswind components and to make the airport more attractive to wider spectrum of

users. This should be done sooner rather than later, but we acknowledge it will be a policy

decision based on availability of funds and a variety of other considerations.

5. Implement LPV approaches to the main runway to improve the reliability of airport access,

install RILS on the runway to aid pilots on approach and install a PAPI on Runway 36 to improve

the safety of this approach;

6. Protect for the eventual extension of the parallel taxiway to 18‐36 all the way to the south;

7. Reserve sufficient space for a terminal area apron expansion to both the north and south to

accommodate both forecast growth in aircraft parking and potentially unforeseen growth;

8. Reserve sufficient space for a terminal building expansion and associated car parking area.;

9. Develop a more detailed major maintenance and repairs plan;

10. Test alternative airport café/restaurant concepts.

FINANCIAL PLAN

11. The airport must ensure that land sales through its land sale policy are properly valued. To

ensure this, the airport must work with local appraisers to ensure that they better understand

the true value of airport lands.

12. The airport should implement a series of supporting fees and charges that are similar to but

lower than competitors like Lake Simcoe. These fees could involve development permit levies,

development service fees, etc.

13. The airport should consider increasing other fees as well, including the AMC and others. These

fees should be constantly reviewed against the competitor airports and adjusted accordingly,

with the goal being to maximize the airport’s revenues.

14. The airport should aggressively pursue land sales as a means of attracting additional tenants

and to raise the necessary funds to pay for the various expansions.

PED-9-2013-4B

Page xxvii


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


BUSINESS PLAN

15. While the current airport logo and brand appear to be strong, consideration should be giving to

reviewing this to see if this could be enhanced to better reflect a more aggressive marketing

approach for the airport.

16. The business plan for the airport should be based on conservative targets and assumptions with

respect to growth and land development, but at the same time the airport should pursue a

much more aggressive approach that can pay much stronger dividends.

GOVERNANCE

17. We recommend that the District seriously consider moving to an Airport Commission model to

operate the airport. To arrive at a final decision they should consult widely with other airports.

They should especially consult with airports that have moved from the municipal model to the

Airport Commission model, to learn from their experience and to gather valuable insight into

the conversion process.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

In 1996 when the Muskoka Airport was being transferred to the District of Muskoka, a Business and Marketing Plan was prepared by LPS Aviation Inc. It identified short term objectives and a long term vision for the airport. That report also examined governance options, management approaches, infrastructure conditions and needs, operational requirements, and marketing approaches. Aspects of the Business and Marketing Plan were updated in 2003 to include more detailed marketing and branding strategy and in 2006 to reaffirm the vision and develop updated short term objectives given new regulatory requirements and upgrades in infrastructure and operations.

The Business and Marketing Plan was followed by the preparation of an Airport Master Plan in 1999. The Master Plan was also prepared by LPS Aviation Inc. and had a 15 year time horizon. This plan was prepared after consultation with aviation and community stakeholders and included an aviation activity analysis, a review of the Airport facilities, an assessment of deficiencies and requirements, and a development and land use plan.

Since the preparation of the above noted reports, many changes to infrastructure and operations have occurred at the Muskoka Airport. A land sale policy was developed in 2000, which resulted in the subsequent sale of 9 lots for aviation‐related businesses. Several other lots and tie‐downs have been leased. New infrastructure improvements include the renovation of the Airport terminal building and the additional of the Little Norway Memorial, expanded aprons and taxiways, new runway lighting, enhanced security features (e.g. fencing and wildlife plan), and new storage facilities. In addition, the District of Muskoka now operates the Imperial Oil facility (FBO).

More recently, in response to an increasingly limited supply of development ready land at the airport, each of the development area options identified in the 1999 Airport Master Plan were reviewed through a Background Report to the Muskoka Airport Development Plan (2011). A detailed investigation of the Eastside Development Area was recently carried out and just completed prior to the commencement of this current study.

Since the original Master and Business and Marketing plans are reaching the end of their expected timeframes and in consideration of the many changes undergone at the Airport since the documents were prepared, the District of Muskoka decided it was time to prepare a new Business and Master Plan for the Muskoka Airport.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

The new Business and Master Plan to be developed as part of this study will guide the development and operation of the Muskoka Airport for the next 15‐20 years. This plan will replace the existing Business and Marketing Plan (1996) and the Airport Master Plan (1999). It will review the current state of the Muskoka Airport and make recommendations on how the District can capitalize on existing assets and opportunities to enhance the business and operation of the airport.

The project includes an examination of:

5. The airport business operation and financial status, potential, needs and requirements;

6. Airport infrastructure and facilities, needs and requirements;

7. Aviation business development, development area expansion and potential land acquisition; and

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


8. Airport governance.

1.3 DETAILED REQUIREMENTS AND SCOPE

A more detailed list of the requirements and the specific scope of this project is provided below:

1. The Business and Master Plan will:

a. Make recommendations with an associated business case to capitalize on the existing assets at the Muskoka Airport;

b. Identify business or service changes that will enhance the financial position and operation of the Airport and provide for sustainability;

c. Identify infrastructure and instrument procedure improvements that would benefit the Airport operation, business and financial position;

d. Identify the potential of Runway 09/27 to contribute to the growth, development, safety and financial position of the Airport and to benefit Muskoka municipalities;

e. Identify the timelines and triggers for any recommended changes;

f. Identify the financial resources and implications for the Airport Capital Budget required to implement the changes and determine the feasibility of such changes;

g. Review the development area options planning undertaken to date including the design and engineering work for the eastside development initiative and make recommendations respecting:

i. Implications related to existing and potential infrastructure improvements;

ii. Phasing of development;

iii. Resources (both financial and operational) needed to support future development; and

iv. Future development options.

h. Identify any abutting land that should be acquired to implement any of the proposed changes with an associated business case;

i. Provide an updated Master Plan map with phasing for the Airport; and

j. Evaluate the effectiveness of the current governance model for the Airport.

2. In addressing the above, at a minimum, the following questions are to be answered:

a. What is the current state of the Muskoka Airport, including:

i. Current function and character of the operation;

ii. Existing businesses;

iii. Existing facilities, infrastructure and services;

iv. Patterns of activity and use (e.g. primary users, non‐aviation and community use, aircraft movements, seasonality, land use);

v. Existing constraints (environmental, topographical, business, social, etc) that affect the airport operation or potential;

vi. General costs and revenue sources; and

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


vii. Deficiencies.

b. Are the vision and objectives for the airport still relevant? If not, what should the vision and objectives be for the Muskoka Airport?

c. How does the Airport fit into the transportation system in Muskoka? What value does it provide to the region and the municipalities within the District of Muskoka?

d. How does the Airport compare to other airports of similar size and function? What changes could the District of Muskoka make to be more competitive and financially sustainable?

e. What are the regulations and requirements that provide a framework for Airport operation and development? What planning criteria should be used for new development taking into account any emerging regulations and requirements?

f. What are the challenges and constraints that would affect development at the airport?

g. Based on the current function and status of the Airport, what are the opportunities that make sense for the operation and development of the Muskoka Airport? More specifically:

i. Based on trends in aviation, tourism, and the wider economy, what are the opportunities and challenges for growth and business development that will affect the Muskoka Airport?

ii. What businesses exist at the Airport and what potential is there for expansion or attraction of new aviation and non‐airside aviation space businesses?

iii. What is the benefit of Runway 09/27 and what potential does this runway have to contribute to growth, development and financial position at the Airport? What improvements should be considered and what would be the timeline with triggers for implementation? What financial resources would be required to undertake those improvements and is there a business case to undertake such improvements?

iv. After reviewing the background to the proposed eastside development initiative, are there any opportunities or constraints that have not been identified? How should the development of this area proceed?

h. To capitalize on the existing assets of the Airport, what infrastructure, business, or service changes or improvements are technically feasible and financially viable in order to enhance operations? What would be required and what would trigger such changes? What financial resources would be necessary to implement the changes and what is the business case for such investment? What benefits would be expected?

i. How can the Airport increase and improve its revenues and financial status so that it can become financially sustainable?

1.4 STUDY APPROACH

The study was undertaken through a number of key tasks as follows:

Review of past studies, current facilities, and historical and current traffic patterns;

Assessment of current operations, including management, financial and governance;

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Stakeholder consultation;

Review of airport vision, and objectives;

Forecasting of future activity, potential opportunities and associated infrastructure requirements;

Preparation and assessment of alternative airport development options;

Interim Presentation to the Planning and Economic Development Committee and the Airport Advisory Committee;

Development of a Financial and Business Plan for the Airport

Discussion of future airport governance models and associated recommendations on future governance

Preparation of a draft report documenting all of the findings of this study

Final Presentation to the Planning and Economic Development Committee and the Airport Advisory Committee of the draft report;

Finalization of all of the study work into a final report.

Early into the study, it became quite clear that there were a lot of divergent views among the various committee members, airport stakeholders, users, etc, as to what direction the airport should take, whether this be related to development, operations, facilities, governance, finances, etc. As a consequence, it was decided that an extensive stakeholder consultation process would be undertaken with the various stakeholder groups. Stakeholders consulted and the method these were consulted are as follows:

General Public – through on‐line surveys;

Tenants and Businesses ‐ through face to face interviews, over the phone and through an on‐line survey;

Incoming Pilots – in person interviews on the ramp;

Incoming Visitors ‐ in person interviews on the ramp;

Economic Development and Tourism Staff – via emailed surveys; and

Elected Officials ‐ over the phone surveys.

1.5 REPORT ORGANISATION

The work carried out as part of this study is organised and presented in a number of sections as follows:

SECTION 2: CURRENT SITUATION

This section presents the current situation at the airport and deals with topics such as:

Existing Infrastructure and facilities;

Current air traffic at the airport;

The airport’s financial situation;

A comparison with other competing airports in the area;

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


The results of the stakeholder consultation program; and

A summary of the current conditions.

SECTION 3: FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES, FORECASTS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

In this part of the report we deal with the following:

Airport Vision and objectives;

Future opportunities for the airport;

Forecast air traffic activity;

Forecast facility requirements.

Subsequent sections document the following:

SECTION 4: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

SECTION 5: FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT

SECTION 6: BUSINESS PLAN

SECTION 7: GOVERNANCE. AND

SECTION 8: RECOMMENDATIONS

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


2.0 CURRENT SITUATION

2.1 LOCATION AND CONTEXT

The Airport is located along Highway 11 within the District of Muskoka. The airport is located nearly midway between the towns of Gravenhurst and Bracebridge, but is actually within the town of Gravenhurst. The airport lands encompass an area measuring approximately 223 hectares (550 acres). The shape of the property follows the configuration of the runways with a northward extension surrounding the main runway and short eastward and westward extensions surrounding the turf runway at the south end of the property. The northern and western perimeters are demarcated by Highway 11 and the Gravenhurst Parkway, while the eastern and southern boundaries lie adjacent to privately owned land and the Beaver Creek Institution, respectively.

Figure 2‐1: Airport Location

2.2 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES

ELEVATION

The elevation of the airport varies from 277.06m (909ft) ASL at the north end of the property (at threshold of Runway 18) to 281.03m (922ft) ASL at the south end (at threshold of Runway 09).

Muskoka Airport

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


TOPOGRAPHY AND VEGETATION

Airport lands lie on a glacial lake (glaciolacustrine) deposit with some exposed bedrock. The topography is relatively flat along the main runway, but rises to high points north of the terminal building and west of the turf runway, which are characterized by rock outcrops. Lands to the east and south of the airfield generally lie at lower elevations.

The vegetation on airport property and surrounding lands consists of a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees. Ground cover on the airfield consists of grass. Gravel pits are located at the southern and east central sections of the property.

Surrounding terrain consists of rolling terrain with rock outcroppings and wetlands scattered throughout, including Wright Lake located east of the airport.

OBSTACLES AND AIRPORT ZONING

Airport zoning regulations are in place for the airport (see Appendix C). These regulations are required to maintain an obstacle free airspace in the vicinity of a certified airport. They protect aircraft operations at the airport, including approaches, take‐off and landing operations, and also ensure that potential and future development of adjacent non‐airport lands are compatible with the airport.

Zoning for Runway 18‐36 protects for a non‐precision reference Code 3 runway strip measuring 150m (492 ft) in width ( 75 m (246 ft) being on each side of the centre‐line of the runway). It is noted that in the AOM, Runway 18‐36 is certified as a 3C non‐precision runway, yet the width of the runway strip is given as 91.4 m (300 ft) in width, which corresponds with a non‐instrument reference Code 3 runway strip. This is a temporary change due to a number of trees that are located to the northwest of the airport on private lands and the airport has not been able to gain access to trim these. However, it is recommended that the airport continue to protect for a 150 m (492 ft) wide runway strip to match current zoning in place, for that point in time that the trees on private property issue gets resolved. In any case, this is not an urgent issue to resolve as the current instrument procedures with limits of 502+ft limit the airport to non‐instrument status anyway (see following discussion).

Vehicles using Highway 11 represent obstacles on the approach to Runway 18. In order to ensure non‐infringement of the approach surface to Runway 18 by all vehicle heights, the threshold is displaced by 243.8 m (800 ft).

INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

There are 3 instrument approach procedures for the airport, with approach limits as follows (see Appendix D for approach diagrams):

RNAV (GNSS) Runway 18:

o The LNAV approach has limits of 505 ft and 1 ½ mi visibility for all aircraft categories;

o The circling approach has limits of 518 ft for category A to C aircraft and 618 ft for

category D aircraft, with visibility limits of 1 ½ mi for A/B categories and 2 mi for C/D

aircraft.

RNAV (GNSS) Runway 36:

o The LNAV approach has limits of 502 ft and 1 ½ mi visibility for all aircraft categories;

o The circling approach has the same limits as the above circling approach.

NDB A (GNSS) Runway 18:

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


o This procedure has only a circling approach with limits of 538 ft for category A to C

aircraft and 618 for category D aircraft, with visibility limits of 1 3/4 mi for A/B

categories and 2 mi for C/D aircraft.

METEOROLOGY

Meteorological records published by Environment Canada for Muskoka are based on data collected at the airport’s weather station over a 30 year period starting in 1971.

TEMPERATURE

The average daily temperature is +4.9o C with the hottest month occurring in July and the coldest month in January. The aerodrome reference temperature is 24.2o C. This represents the average of the maximum daily temperature for the hottest month of the year and is of relevance in determining a suitable runway length for aircraft take‐offs and landings.

WINDS

Year‐round winds prevail from the west and northwest and can be expected most often in the summer and northwest winds in the fall and winter. The maximum gust recorded was in October 1973, when a gust from the west measured 68 knots (126 km/hr).

A feasibility study for relocation of the crosswind runway (Crosswind Runway Relocation Feasibility Study completed by Genivar in 2011) noted that during daylight summer hours during the period 1990‐2008, nearly 85% of all winds were less than 10 knots. Winds over 10 knots, were predominantly from the northwest and southeast.

The characteristics of wind play a determining role in the number and orientation of runways at an airport. Transport Canada recommends that the number and orientation of the runways should ensure that there is at least one runway available for the aircraft the aerodrome is intended to serve 95% of the time (more discussion is provided on this in section 3.4).

VISIBILITY

Visibility is generally clear and favours operation of aircraft by Visual Flight Rules (VFR). According to the previous Muskoka Master Plan, VFR visibility conditions were recorded 92.5% of the time. Visibility conditions defining Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), in which cloud ceiling is below 304.8 m (1,000 ft) and/or visibility is below 4.6 km (3 miles) were recorded 7.5% of the time.

Apart from determining which type of flight rules applies for the operation of aircraft, visibility plays an important role in determining which type of visual aids to provide at an airport. As an example, visibility conditions defining IFR requires the use of approach lighting aids. This is addressed under the section on airfield lighting.

PRECIPITATION

On average, during the year there are 122.9 days with more than 0.2 mm of rainfall and 80 days with more than 0.2 cm of snowfall. This data is useful in estimating the use of snow removal equipment and the occurrence of runway contamination.

2.3 ASSET ASSESSMENT

Assessment of airport facilities and infrastructure is based on Transport Canada standards and recommended practices for airport design and land use at and in the vicinity of airports. Proposed

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


changes to Transport Canada’s aerodrome standards (TP312 4th edition), were not available at the time of preparation of this report.

An inventory of facilities and infrastructure is based on the site visit conducted on July 31st and August 1st , 2012 and consultation with airport staff, officials from the District of Muskoka and airport tenants. Valuable information was also obtained from the following sources:

Airport Operations Manual for Muskoka Airport dated September 7, 1988 and amended September 6, 2005;

Muskoka Airport Master Plan dated September 1999;

Muskoka Airport Pavement Re‐Evaluation – Runway and Apron Surfaces dated October 11th, 2011;

Muskoka Airport Layout (Infrastructure map with contours) dated November 14th, 2011;

Nav Canada ‐ Canadian Airport Charts dated November 15th, 2012;

Nav Canada ‐ Canada Flight Supplement dated November 15th, 2012; and

Nav Canada – Canada Air Pilot November 15st, 2012.

The assessment is divided into five sections:

Airfield;

Building structures;

Fuelling facilities and airport vehicles;

Groundside facilities; and

Utilities and site servicing.

AIRFIELD

DESIGN AIRCRAFT

The Airport Operations Manual (AOM) identifies the de Havilland Dash 8 (reference Code C) as the design aircraft for the primary runway. The airport’s 1999 master plan lists the B737‐200 (reference Code C) as the critical aircraft. Reference Code C aircraft are those aircraft with a wingspan measuring 24 m (78.7 ft) up to but not including 36 m (118.1 ft) and an outer main gear wheel span measuring 6 m (19.7 ft) up to but not including 9 m (29.5 ft). Examples are listed in Table 2‐1. The DHC‐8‐400 (Q400) differs from other Dash 8 aircraft in that its outer main gear wheel span, 9.54 m (13.3 ft), falls within the wheel span range of reference Code D aircraft (measuring 9 m (19.7 ft) up to but not including 14 m (45.9 ft). This wheel span dimension is important in determining the width of taxiways.

The airfield can accommodate reference Code C aircraft larger than the de Havilland Dash 8 and B737‐200, including jet aircraft such as the A320 and B737‐700. Runway 18‐36 offers sufficient width to accommodate larger aircraft and is frequently used by the Lockheed C130 (reference Code D aircraft) according to tower records of aircraft movements.

More discussion on the design aircraft is provided in section 3.4 dealing with future requirements.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


RUNWAYS

The airport has 2 runways: 18‐36 and 09‐27. The layout of the airport site is illustrated in Figure 2 ‐2.

Table 2‐1: Aircraft by Reference Code

Aircraft Wing span (m)

Outer Main Gear Wheel Span (m)

Engine Type Maximum Take‐off

Weight (kg)

Operators in Canada

HS748 31.23 ‐ Turboprop 23,133 Calm Air

ATR 42‐300 24.57 4.68 Turboprop 16,700 Calm Air, First Air

ATR 72 27.05 4.66 Turboprop 22,500 First Air

DHC‐8‐100 (Q100) 25.89 8.49 Turboprop 16,466 Air Canada‐Jazz

DHC‐8‐300 (Q300) 27.43 8.42 Turboprop 19,500 AC‐Jazz

DHC‐8‐400 (Q400) 28.40 9.54 Turboprop 29,257 AC‐Jazz, WestJet

Convair 580 32.12 8.52 Turboprop 25,855 Nolinor

CRJ705/900 24.85 4.99 Jet 38,329 Air Canada‐Jazz

Embraer 175 26.00 6.31 Jet 38,790 Air Canada

Embraer 190 28.72 7.22 Jet 51,800 Air Canada

Airbus A319 34.10 8.95 Jet 75,900 Air Canada

Airbus A320 34.10 8.98 Jet 77,400 Air Canada

Boeing 737‐200 28.35 6.36 Jet 58,105 First Air, Nolinor

Boeing 737‐600 34.32 6.99 Jet 65,544 WestJet

Boeing 737‐700 34.32 6.99 Jet 70,080 WestJet

Boeing 737‐800 34.32 7.00 Jet 79,016 WestJet, Sunwing

RUNWAY 18-36

Runway 18‐36 is the airport’s primary runway facing north at 001o (36) and south at 181o (18). It has a length of 1,829 m (6,000 ft) and width of 45 m (147.6 ft), and is certified as a reference code 3C runway in the AOM. The threshold of Runway 18 is displaced by 243.8 m (800 ft) to avoid penetration of the approach surface by vehicles travelling on Highway 11.

The runway is equipped with lighting for day and night use plus non‐precision approaches, which enables aircraft to conduct approaches under certain low visibility conditions. The runway has GPS approaches with limits of just 500 ft (152 m) and 1.5 miles (2.4 km) horizontal visibility to both ends plus NDB approaches with similar limits. Based on meteorological data described earlier, these limits are exceeded approximately 5% of the time, so that the runway is not available due to ceiling or visibility during these periods. Paved with asphalt, the runway is available for use during the winter months. The runway has a slight longitudinal slope of 0.15% rising 2.7 m (9 ft) from the north threshold to the south threshold. The pavement load rating (PLR) of 9 permits the operation of aircraft weighing up to 90,270kg (200,000lb). This is suitable for supporting some reference Code D aircraft at maximum take‐off weight, such as the Lockheed C130 (MTOW of 79,379kg) and others at reduced weights, such as the B757‐200.

Runway 18‐36 dates back to the 1950s replacing two of the airport’s turf runways that had been constructed in the 1930’s as part of the airport’s original triangular three‐runway configuration. During the 1950’s, the runway was expanded and paved by the Department of National Defence with runway lighting added before the end of the decade. Resurfacing of the runway was completed in 1980 and 1994, when a reduced width overlay was installed.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure 2‐2: Airport Layout

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


In 2011, Exp Services carried out a pavement re‐evaluation of the runway and apron surfaces. In their report, they rated the pavement in fair to good condition describing it as generally old asphalt pavement with underlying granular layer. Other notable observations included the following:

Frequent to extensive block cracking and open paving joints;

Low severity dips and bumps in a few areas on the southern half of the runway;

Low severity rutting in a few isolated areas;

Some grass growing in the cracks near the edges of the runway at the north end;

Poor to fair surface drainage to the gravel strip area to the east and at the south turn‐around area.

The report concluded that the pavement would continue to deteriorate and recommended rehabilitation by 2015 through careful monitoring and maintenance. A new asphalt surface was recommended using Cold‐In‐Place Recycling described in further detail in the report.

Runway 18‐36 is a valuable asset to the airport as the length and pavement loading rating are suitable for the operation of a range of aircraft including narrow‐body jets such as the B737 and A320. Some reference code D aircraft such as the B757‐200, could operate at the airport, but would suffer take‐off weight limitations due to the runway length.

It is recommended that the airport carry out the rehabilitation of the pavement as advised by Exp Services, though as noted later in the report, the airport may wish to consider lower cost alternatives to rehabilitating this pavement, if available at the time.

RUNWAY 09-27

Runway 09‐27 is the airport’s crosswind runway facing east at 090o and west at 270o. It measures 670 m (2,199 ft) in length and 30 m (100 ft) in width and is certified as a reference code 1A runway. The runway is only equipped for day use (runway edge and threshold markers) and non‐instrument approaches, which restricts aircraft to approaches during good visibility conditions. The runway surface is turf and has limited availability during the winter months. The threshold at Runway 09 is 2.01 m (6.6 ft) higher than at the threshold of Runway 27, which yields a minimal runway slope of 0.3%. Due to the runway’s short length, aircraft accommodated are limited to light single and twin engine aircraft, such as the Cessna 172 and Piper PA‐31 Navajo.

Runway 09‐27 has the primary role of serving light single and twin engine aircraft that are restricted when crosswind components exceeding 10 knots occur on Runway 18‐36.

Runway 09‐27 is also situated on top of a large gravel deposit. Highlighted in the 1999 airport master plan as a potential source of revenue for the airport’s reserve fund, extraction of gravel has taken place and an open pit is situated south of the runway strip in close proximity to the threshold of Runway 09.

The runway is currently used by the local flying school and light aircraft owners and accommodated 2% of itinerant movements in 2011. The runway is in good condition with the following observations recorded during the site visit:

Close proximity of open gravel pit to runway strip at west end of the runway;

No evidence of water erosion;

Bumpy surface noted by pilots.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Options to dealing with this runway in the future are discussed in sections 3‐4 – future requirements and sections 4‐1‐ the development plan.

TAXIWAYS

The airfield is equipped with several taxiways, some of which are private and others comprising part of the airfield. Three taxiways are described in the AOM and published in NavCanada’s airport charts. Their location is illustrated in Figure 2‐2:

Taxiway Alpha;

Taxiway Bravo; and

South Apron Taxiway.

TAXIWAY ALPHA

Taxiway Alpha provides a connection between Runway 18‐36 and a partial parallel taxiway serving airport tenants at the north end of the property. Located approximately 160 m (525 ft) from the end of Runway 18, it measures 121 m (397 ft) in length and 15 m (50 ft) in width and is listed as a reference Code B taxiway in the AOM. The width, however, is sufficient to accommodate reference Code C aircraft with a wheel base less than 18m. Paved with asphalt, the pavement has a PLR of 9 under 0.5 MPa tire pressure. The taxiway was originally built as an asphalt paved taxiway in 1983.

Taxiway Alpha plays a significant role for north field tenants as it permits aircraft to exit or enter the runway closer to the displaced threshold of Runway 18 and reduces the length of runway used for back‐tracking. It is in good condition.

It is recommended that the airport protect this taxiway to reference Code C standards to accommodate the future role of the taxiway as part of a reference Code C taxi route between Runway 18‐36 and a future full length parallel taxiway to the South Apron.

TAXIWAY BRAVO

Taxiway Bravo provides a connection between Runway 18‐36 and the above‐mentioned partial parallel taxiway that serves airport tenants at the north end of the property. Located approximately 886 m (2,906 ft) from the end of Runway 36 (or nearly midway along the length of this runway), it measures 76 m (249 ft) in length and 22.9 m (75 ft) in width and is listed as a reference Code B taxiway in the AOM. This coding is based on the fact that Taxiway Bravo connects to the parallel taxiway which varies in width from 15.2m (50ft) in the older original section to 10.7m (35ft) at both the north and south sections. Since aircraft could use any one of these taxiway sections, the Code B designation protects for the most limited width (10.7m/35ft). The width of Taxiway Bravo, however, is sufficient to accommodate reference Code C aircraft with a wheel base less than 18 m (59 ft). Paved with asphalt, the taxiway was designed to meet a PLR of 9 under 0.5 MPa tire pressure and built in 2003.

Taxiway Bravo plays a significant role for all users as it permits aircraft to exit or enter the runway closer to the mid‐point of Runway 18‐36 and reduces the length of runway used for back‐tracking to the main apron or north field aprons. It is in good condition.

It is recommended that the airport protect the taxiway to reference Code C standards to accommodate the future role of the taxiway as part of a reference Code C taxi route between Runway 18‐36 and a future full length parallel taxiway to the South Apron.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


SOUTH APRON TAXIWAY

The South Apron Taxiway connects the threshold of Runway 36 with the South Apron, which serves the terminal building. It measures 60m in length and 90 m in width and is listed as a reference Code C taxiway in the AOM.

Paved with asphalt, the taxiway was included in the pavement re‐evaluation completed by Exp Services in 2011. In their findings, Exp Services highlighted the following deficiencies:

Frequent to extensive block cracking with most sealed;

Narrow low severity depressions along some cracks;

Very slight rolling/uneven surface; and

Poor surface drainage to perimeter grassy areas.

Rehabilitation of the taxiway is recommended as described above for Runway 18‐36.

PARALLEL TAXIWAY

The parallel taxiway is described in the 1999 airport master plan as a “new 355‐metre extension with unknown aircraft load rating constructed in 1998” and is illustrated connecting to Taxiway Alpha. That section of the taxiway that connects with Taxiway Alpha was originally constructed in 1983 measuring 15.2m (50ft) in width. In 1998, the taxiway was extended southward and constructed to a width of 10.7m (35ft). In 2010, the taxiway was extended towards the north to connect with the north end of Runway 18‐36 (north of displaced threshold). This extension was paved with asphalt and constructed to a width 10.7m (35ft). The taxiway currently measures 885 m (2,904 ft) and its separation from Runway 18‐36 varies from 102.6 m (337 ft) at Taxiway Bravo to 151 m (495 ft) as measured from taxiway centreline to runway centreline. This exceeds the 93 m (305 ft) minimum separation between the taxiway centreline and runway centreline recommended by Transport Canada for taxiways and a non‐precision reference Code 3C runway.

The parallel taxiway also plays a significant role for mid‐field and north field tenants as it serves as a taxi route for arriving and departing aircraft and reduces runway occupancy time associated with back‐tracking on the main runway. It is in good condition.

It is recommended that the land between Taxiway Bravo and the South Apron be reserved for the future extension of the taxiway southward to the South Apron to reduce runway occupancy time associated with back‐tracking on Runway 18‐36.

SOUTH TAXIWAY AND GRASS TAXIWAY

A paved taxiway connects the South Apron (terminal apron) with tenant facilities south of the terminal building and leads to a grass taxiway, which, in turn, provides access to the threshold of Runway 09. Although not listed in the AOM, during the site visit, the routing of the taxiway was identified with pylons between the South Taxiway serving Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing hangars and Runway 09‐27.

APRONS

Three aprons are listed in the AOM and illustrated in Figure 2‐2, as follows:

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


SOUTH APRON

The South Apron is located adjacent to the terminal building west of the threshold of Runway 36. The eastern section of the South Apron was constructed in 1951 and expanded towards the west in 1980 for a total area measuring 90 m (295 ft) by 95 m (310 ft). A new section measuring approximately 126 m (413 ft) by 95 m (310 ft) was added in 2006 with a PLR of 9, which matches the PLR of Runway 18‐36 and the South Apron taxiway. The original section of the South Apron was re‐surfaced in 1994 and re‐evaluated by Exp Services in 2011, which identified the following deficiencies:

Frequent to extensive block cracking, most sealed; and

Narrow low severity depressions along most joints and cracks.

The South Apron represents the airport’s primary apron serving the air terminal building, fuelling facilities and the Ministry of Natural Resources’s hangar. It also serves as a taxi route between the south field tenants and Runway 18‐36. The apron is heavily used during the peak summer months for long term and short term parking of aircraft and often reaches capacity depending on the size of aircraft parked and the duration of parking. The airport currently uses a pavement marking scheme to assist pilots to taxi in and out of the apron without conflicting with parked aircraft.

Rehabilitation of the original section of apron is recommended as described above for Runway 18‐36.

PRIVATE SOUTH APRON

The Private South Apron is owned by a tenant, Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing, who occupy airport lands south of the terminal building. Located west of Runway 18‐36 and south of the terminal building, it is accessed via the South Taxiway. Serving private hangar facilities, the apron measures 36 m (118 ft) by 85.5 m (280.5 ft) and is paved with asphalt.

PRIVATE CENTRE APRON

The Private Central Apron is located west of Runway 18‐36 and accessed from Taxiway Alpha and the partial parallel taxiway. The apron serves private hangar facilities.

TIE-DOWN PARKING AREAS

The airport offers tie‐down facilities for parking of light aircraft. A total of 10 pavement‐edge tie‐downs are located on the South Apron on the west and east facing edges north of the terminal building. An additional 12 tie‐downs are located on a grass parking area east of the South Taxiway serving Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing.

AIRFIELD LIGHTING

RUNWAY LIGHTS

Runway 18‐36 is the only runway equipped with intensity lighting (all medium intensity) as follows:

Runway edge lights;

Threshold lights at the threshold of Runway 36;

Displaced threshold wing bar lights at the displaced threshold of Runway 18; and

Runway end lights.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


As a reference Code 3C runway, Runway 18‐36 requires medium intensity runway edge lights for use at night. As a runway that supports non‐precision approaches, this meets Transport Canada’s recommendation for use of these lights as a visual aid during the day when low visibility conditions require non‐precision approaches. The threshold and runway end lights are installed at each end of the runway as required for runways equipped with runway edge lights.

Much of the airfield lighting was upgraded about 5 years ago, so this is generally all in good condition.

In addition, the use of Runway Identification Lights (RILS) is recommended at the displaced threshold for Runway 18 in accordance with Transport Canada guidelines which recommend provision of these lights where a runway threshold is permanently displaced from the runway extremity and additional threshold conspicuity is necessary.

PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATORS

Runway 18 is equipped with a Precision Approach Path Indicator system of lights, also referred to by the acronym PAPI. This type of visual approach slope indicator system is required for Runway 18 because the runway serves turbojet powered aircraft that require some form of approach guidance during daylight and night‐time hours. In addition, the presence of two transportation corridors (Gravenhurst Parkway and Highway 11) represents a significant hazard in the event of an aircraft under‐shooting or overrunning the runway.

The airport should consider the installation of PAPI’s on the approach to Runway 36 in support of turbo‐jet powered aircraft operations at the airport (see further discussion section 4.2).

APPROACH LIGHTS

Transport Canada recommends a simple approach lighting system, also referred to by the acronym ODALs, for a runway supporting non‐precision approaches.

Runway 18‐36 is currently not equipped with approach lights, but should consider installation of ODALS for both approaches at some time in the future, should the runway be upgraded to non‐precision status with approaches that would provide non‐precision limits. At a length of 450m, these lights could easily be accommodated within the constraints of the federal institutions to the south and the Gravenhurst Parkway and Highway 11 to the north. In the meantime, the airport should consider at least installing Runway Identification Lights (RILS) to provide better guidance at night and during times of poor visibility (see further discussion section 4.2).

TAXIWAY AND APRON EDGE LIGHTS

The South Apron Taxiway and South Apron are the only parts of the airfield equipped with taxiway and apron edge lights. Given the importance of the South Apron Taxiway and South Apron as one of the airport’s key taxi routes and designated apron for aircraft parking, these lights are required to provide visual guidance to aircraft taxiing at night.

Taxiways Alpha and Bravo are equipped with taxiway/runway intersection lights. Taxiway/apron intersection lights are also located where the South Apron Taxiway intersects with the South Apron.

APRON FLOODLIGHTING

Apron floodlighting is available at the South Apron because the apron is intended for use during night time hours. The floodlighting consists of the following units:

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


On the west facing edge of the air terminal building’s roof;

On apron tower lighting installation located south of terminal building consisting of two large metal halide fixtures with a third light that illuminates the public car parking lot;

At fuel farm consisting of three light fixtures to illuminate the fuel farm and refuelling area.

AIRCRAFT RADIO CONTROL OF AERODROME LIGHTING SYSTEM (ARCAL)

The airport is equipped with an Aircraft Radio Control of Aerodrome Lighting System (ARCAL) which enables pilots to control airport lighting when required. The system controls the following lights:

Runway lights on Runway 18‐36;

Taxiway edge lights, taxiway/runway intersection lights, taxiway/apron intersection lights; and

PAPI unit serving Runway 18.

The system is Type K which allows pilots to adjust the intensity of the lights to low, medium or high intensity settings. The ARCAL system is of economic value to the airport as it saves costs by permitting the airport to switch off the lights at night when the airfield is not in use and removing the need to provide staff to switch the lights on and off.

AIRFIELD SIGNAGE AND MARKERS

AIRFIELD SIGNAGE

The airfield is equipped with four types of signs as follows:

Mandatory instruction signs;

Mandatory frequency/aerodrome traffic frequency sign;

Information signs; and

Road holding position signs.

Mandatory instruction signs are required to identify a location beyond which an aircraft taxiing or vehicle should not proceed without authorization from air traffic control or verification that the runway is clear. They include runway designation signs, which are located at the following intersections with Runway 18‐36:

On both sides of the South Apron Taxiway;

On Taxiway Alpha;

On Taxiway Bravo; and

Private taxiway intersection with north turn‐around area of runway.

A mandatory frequency/aerodrome traffic frequency sign is recommended by Transport Canada at airports without control towers, such as Muskoka Airport. This type of sign is located on the South Apron Taxiway in line with the taxiway holding position marking at the intersection with Runway 18‐36.

Information signs are required where there is an operational need to identify by sign, a specific location or routing information. They include runway exit signs and direction signs. Runway exit signs are located at the following locations:

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


On Runway 18‐36 at intersection with Taxiway Alpha to indicate direction to Taxiway Alpha when approaching from the north and from the south; and

On Runway 18‐36 at intersection with Taxiway Bravo to indicate direction to Taxiway Bravo when approaching from the north and the south.

Road holding position signs are required at all road entrances to a runway. Road holding position signs are located at the AWOS Road and the VHF DF Road where they intersect with Runway 18‐36.

All signs on the airfield are fibre optic for night time use.

It is noted that there are no signs identifying the location of Runway 09‐27. The airport should consider the installation of a mandatory frequency/aerodrome traffic frequency sign and a mandatory instruction sign on the grass taxiway to assist pilots not familiar with the layout of the runways.

AIRFIELD MARKERS

The use of retro‐reflective blue taxiway markers on Taxiways Alpha and Bravo meets Transport Canada’s recommended use of markers where taxiway centre line or edge lights or taxiway centre line markers are not provided.

AIRFIELD PAVEMENT MARKINGS

Pavement markings are located on Runway 18‐36, Taxiways Alpha, Bravo, South Apron Taxiway, partial parallel taxiway plus South Apron and Private South Apron.

RUNWAY PAVEMENT MARKINGS

All pavement markings displayed on Runway 18‐36 are required according to Transport Canada standards for a paved reference Code 3 runway. Markings displayed are as follows:

Runway designation markings;

Runway centre line markings;

Threshold markings;

Aiming point markings; and

Touchdown zone markings.

Arrows identifying the displaced threshold at Runway 18 conform with Transport Canada standards for a permanently displaced threshold.

The absence of runway side stripe markings between the thresholds is permitted given the contrast that exists between the dark edges of the runway and the light coloured gravel dominating the runway strip.

TAXIWAY PAVEMENT MARKINGS

All taxiways display a taxiway centre line marking and a taxi‐holding position marking as required by Transport Canada standards. The former is required when serving a reference Code 3 runway such as Runway 18‐36 while the latter is required to identify the holding position short of the runway.

APRON PAVEMENT MARKINGS

The South Apron displays aircraft stand taxilane markings and aircraft stand markings to identify taxi routes and parking positions on the apron, respectively. Both meet Transport Canada

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


recommendations; the former providing guidance from the taxiway centreline to a point on the apron where aircraft stand markings commence and the latter for designating parking positions on a paved apron.

Taxi‐holding position markings are recommended on north field tenant aprons and taxiways to identify the limits of the taxiway strip associated with the partial parallel taxiway. Since Taxiways Alpha and Bravo are currently limited to reference Code B aircraft, the latter is limited to aircraft wide enough to accommodate reference Code B aircraft, and the markings should be located 21.5 m (70.5 ft) from the taxiway centreline as recommended by Transport Canada.

WIND DIRECTION INDICATORS

According to the AOM, there were three wind direction indicators at the airport. These were located as follows:

Northwest of Runway 36 threshold;

West of Runway 36 threshold; and

Southwest of Runway 18 threshold.

Only one of the wind direction indicators remains in its original location following the 2006 apron expansion, this being the indicator southwest of Runway 18 threshold. The indicator northwest of Runway 36 threshold was relocated to a site northeast of Runway 36 threshold, while the indicator west of Runway 36 threshold was removed in the same year as it was too close to the terminal building expansion. The remaining two units meet the Transport Canada standard that an aerodrome shall be equipped with at least one wind direction indicator. Two of the units serving Runway 18‐36 are lighted for use at night to complement night time operations on the runway.

AERODROME ROTATING BEACON

The airport is equipped with an aerodrome rotating beacon as required by Transport Canada for aerodromes intended for use at night. The beacon is located approximately 366 m (1,200 ft) northwest of the threshold of Runway 36 elevated to a height of 25.1 m (82.5 ft) above ground level.

Operation of the beacon is independent of the ARCAL system, as it is equipped with a photocell activation system.

NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

The airport is equipped with an NDB (Non‐Directional Beacon) unit in support of an NDB A approach. The NDB unit is located off airport lands approximately 3.5 NM (6.5 km) northeast of the airport. It also serves high level and low level en‐route navigation.

A VHF Direction Finder is also located at the airport to assist air traffic control in locating aircraft. It is currently located east of the southern section of Runway 18‐36, as illustrated in Figure 2‐2.

AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVING SYSTEM (AWOS)

The airport is equipped with an AWOS station to observe and disseminate weather conditions at the Muskoka Airport. The station is located on the east side of Runway 18‐36.

EMERGENCY POWER GENERATOR

The emergency power generator is an essential component of the airport’s power supply during power grid failures. This unit is located in a separate building adjacent to the FEC.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


AIRSIDE ROADS

The AOM identifies several airside roads in the airport site layout illustrated in Appendix A including a perimeter road and separate roads to access the AWOS, VHF Direction Finder and bomb disposal site.

Planned relocation of the VHF Direction Finder (to permit new lands to be developed) will require a new gravel road for access to the installation and relocation of the mandatory hold signage.

A gravel perimeter road encompassing the entire property is desirable for wildlife control and access to distant parts of the airfield without driving on the runways.

AIRFIELD DRAINAGE

Airfield drainage is generally enhanced by the inherent good drainage characteristics of the underlying sands and gravel of the glaciolacustrine deposit. Piping systems collect water along the western side of Runway 18‐36 and drain it towards lands along the eastern perimeter of the property. The District’s engineering and public works department has recommended inspection of airfield drainage systems in the near future.

The Exp Services pavement evaluation report identified localized areas where surface drainage was deficient including the following:

Poor to fair surface drainage to the gravel strip area to the east of Runway 18‐36; and

Poor surface drainage to the perimeter grassy areas to the north and south of the south turn‐around area of Runway 18‐36 and the south section of the South Apron.

SUMMARY

Table 2‐2: Summary – Airfield Assessment

Asset Recommendation

Runway 18‐36 Pavement rehabilitation as per Exp Services report Runway 09‐27 Taxiway Alpha Re‐certification to reference Code C standards

Taxiway Bravo Re‐certification to reference Code C standards South Apron Taxiway Pavement rehabilitation as per Exp Services report Partial Parallel Taxiway Grass Taxiway Consider provision of taxiway edge markers and signage South Apron Pavement rehabilitation as per Exp Services report Approach Lights Consider installation of RILS on both approaches to Runway 18‐36 PAPIS Consider installation on approach to Runway 36 Airfield Signage Provision of signage identifying Runway 09‐27 Taxiway Pavement Markings Addition of taxiway hold markings on tenant taxiways Apron Pavement Markings Addition of taxiway hold markings on tenant aprons Airside Road – VHF DF Road Relocation to new location of VHF DF installation Airside Road – Perimeter Road Extension to north field to improve access to northeast lands

BUILDING STRUCTURES

AIR TERMINAL BUILDING

The ATB is located at the southwest end of airport lands adjacent to the South Apron and accessed from Airport Road which connects with Gravenhurst Parkway.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


According to the 1999 Master Plan, the ATB was originally constructed in 1968. The building was rehabilitated in 1986 and again in 2007, when it was increased in size to incorporate the Little Norway Memorial, a Royal Norwegian Air Force cultural attraction. The interior of the building offers the following functions:

Public areas:

o Little Norway Memorial exhibit room;

o Waiting/holding room area;

o Public washrooms;

Public facilities:

o A conference room;

o Three public telephones, one in each of the two airside entrances and one at the flight planning computer desk; and

o Vending machines for soft drinks and snacks.

Airport administration and mechanical rooms:

o Reception desk and administration office;

o Airport manager’s office;

o Janitorial service room;

o Mechanical room; and

o Storage room for catering supplies.

Rental areas:

o One office for rental car tenant;

o Two empty spaces available for lease.

Pilot lounge:

o Flight planning computer, telephone and wireless internet;

o Kitchen area with complementary coffee;

o Visitor lounge with television and vending machines;

o Washroom; and

o Vacant room (potential use for resting/sleeping).

The terminal building is in excellent condition. Any expansion of the building could be met by expanding the building towards the north where the new section of the South Apron already exists and would facilitate short walking distance between aircraft and terminal facilities. Any expansion would require relocation of the equipment garage and tie‐down facilities to sites on the north facing perimeter of the South Apron.

AIRPORT MAINTENANCE FACILITIES

The airport is equipped with a maintenance garage, metal shed and equipment shed.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


MAINTENANCE GARAGE AND COLD STORAGE SHED

The maintenance garage is a 5‐bay facility for the storage and servicing of airport vehicles. This facility is located at the north end of airport lands accessible from the airside via the airport perimeter road and the groundside via Gravenhurst Parkway. Constructed in the 1950’s, the garage is in good condition.

The metal cold storage shed was built in the 1980’s in support of the maintenance garage.

EQUIPMENT SHED

An equipment shed is located north of the terminal building. Constructed in 2009, it is a 3‐bay facility used for the storage of airport vehicles that is accessible from the airside only via the South Apron.

FIELD ELECTRICAL CENTRE (FEC)

The FEC is located groundside to the south west of the terminal building. It plays an essential role to the airport in providing all power to the airfield lighting and the switch gear, constant current regulators, ARCAL system, etc.

SOUTH BUILDING

A building dating back to the 1930’s is located on south airport lands in close proximity to the Beaver Creek Institution. The building held wartime functions during the Second World War, but is currently leased by the Beaver Creek Institution for non‐aviation purposes.

SUMMARY

Table 2‐3: Summary – Assessment of Buildings Structures

Asset Recommendation

Air Terminal Building No immediate or imminent issues

Equipment Garage No immediate or imminent issues

FUELLING FACILITIES AND AIRPORT VEHICLES

FUELLING FACILITIES

Fuelling facilities are located at the airport for aircraft and airport maintenance vehicles.

FUEL FOR AIRCRAFT

A new aircraft fuelling facility is located at the southern perimeter of the South Apron. Constructed in 2006 by Imperial Oil on land leased to them, the facility is owned by Imperial Oil, operated by the District of Muskoka and the fuel supplied by Imperial Oil. It consists of two 50,000 litre tanks, one for jet fuel (Jet A‐1) and the other for Avgas (100LL). A mobile refuelling truck, also owned by Imperial Oil, is equipped for over‐wing and single point refuelling of jet fuel and enables fuelling of aircraft at any location at the airport.

FUEL FOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE VEHICLES

An airside fuelling facility for airport maintenance vehicles is located at the maintenance garage. Tanks with dispensing equipment are available for diesel powered vehicles only. Floodlighting of the facility

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


enables fuelling at night time, which is valuable to snow removal operations during the shorter daytime hours of the winter.

The facility is in good condition.

AIRPORT SERVICE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT

The airport is equipped with its own fleet of vehicles for snow removal and other maintenance activities.

GROUNDSIDE FACILITIES

AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD AND TERMINAL AREA PARKING

The main access to the airport is via the Gravenhurst Parkway, which connects to Highway 11 to the north via Ecclestone Dr (Regional Road 118) and to the south via Bethune Dr (Regional Road 41). This southern access is much more circuitous than the northern route. The Gravenhurst Parkway provides direct access to north field tenant facilities and airside entry gates along the western perimeter of airport lands. It also connects with a separate road ‐ Airport Road ‐ that accesses south field tenant facilities and the air terminal building. Airport Road is paved with asphalt and connects with a large parking area that serves the south field tenants and the terminal building. Terminal area parking is available at an asphalt paved lot immediately west of the terminal and a gravel surface lot to the south. The former has a capacity for five vehicles, while the latter is large enough for another four vehicles.

FENCING

A chain link fence is in use at the airport for security purposes and wildlife control. New sections of fence were installed on the eastern perimeter in 2009 through a Community Adjustment Fund Grant.

UTILITIES AND SITE SERVICING

The airport’s power, water, sewage treatment systems and natural gas are discussed in the following paragraphs.

ELECTRICITY

Electrical power requirements at the airport are met by more than one source. At the north end of the airport, power requirements are fed from a source originating at Highway 11. At the south end, an underground source is provided from the southern boundary. An independent power supply consisting of automatic natural gas generators provides power to the terminal building, fuelling facilities and the airfield lighting system.

WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE TREATMENT

Water supply at the airport relies on wells while sewage treatment is based on individual tanks and septic fields. Municipal water and sewage systems are located on the south airport property line to service the Beaver Creek Institution. The 1999 airport master plan noted the spare capacity available on the municipal systems servicing the Beaver Creek Institution and the long term value this would bring to the airport.

It is recommended that the airport should at least protect for connecting with both municipal water and sewage systems at some time in the future. Whether or not these connections would ever be provided would be dependent on a combination of environmental and other policies at that time, from a number of levels of government, such as provincial, regional or municipal.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


NATURAL GAS

The airport obtains natural gas from a gas main located at a mid‐field point on the property. As noted earlier, natural gas is used to generate electrical power for airfield lighting systems, the terminal building and the fuelling facilities.

2.4 AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY

TRENDS IN AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY AT THE AIRPORT

Aircraft activity at YQA has overall slowly declined up till 2004 and since then has slowly increased – see Figure 2‐3. The trend has been similar for both itinerant and local movements, except in 2012 where local movements have declined significantly while itinerant movements have increased.

Figure 2‐4 shows the trend in movements at YQA by operator type, where interestingly, commercial movements in general appear to be rising while private movements have been generally declining. More specifically, movements by domestic air carriers have been increasing since 2004. Domestic private movements have been decreasing since 2003, but are up slightly in 2012. International private movements have been declining since their peak in 2004. Other commercial movements have continued to decline since 2001 while government movements have been slowly increasing

Figure 2‐3: Annual Itinerant and Local Movements at Muskoka Airport, 1997 to 2012

The trend in itinerant movements by engine type is shown in Figures 2‐5 and 2‐6. It is clearly evident from Figure 2‐5 that movements by piston aircraft have been generally declining. These movements declined up till 2004, remained fairly steady between 2005 and 2010, and then appear to be lower again for 2011 and 2012. This trend for piston movements seems to have generally been reflected in the total movements, at least until about 2005 at which time the piston movements started a flat to declining trend and total movements began a steady upward trend.

‐

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12est

Year

Total

Itinerant

Local

Source: Statistics Canada 2012 estimated from Jan‐Oct data

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure 2‐4: Annual Itinerant at Muskoka Airport by Operator Type, 1997 to 2012

Figure 2‐5. Annual Itinerant at Muskoka Airport by Engine Type, 1997 to 2012

As illustrated in Figure 2‐6, turboprop aircraft movements have been increasing steadily from 1997 through to 2008 with particularly strong growth in 2011 and 2012. Helicopter movements have been slowly increasing until 2009, but have declined since then. Jet movements increased to 2003 but have been fairly steady since then. Overall, the declines in piston movements over the last decade have been gradually offset by gains in other types, especially turboprops.

‐

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12est

Year

Domestic air carrier Domestic other commercial Domestic private International air carrier International private Government

Source: Statistics Canada 2012 estimated from Jan‐Oct data

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12est

All & Piston Total itinerant Piston engines

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure 2‐6: Annual Itinerant at Muskoka Airport by Engine Type, 1997 to 2012

Trends in movements by aircraft weight have been consistent with the changes observed by engine category. Movements of aircraft under 2 tonnes remained steady from 1998 to 2001, declined from 2002 to 2004 and have not changed greatly since. Movements of aircraft in the 2‐4 tonne range have fluctuated but currently are at close to their 15‐year low. For aircraft weighing 4‐9 tonnes, there was a slow increase until 2008 which accelerated in the last 4 years, consistent with the growth in turboprop activity. Movements of aircraft over 9 tonne peaked in 2008 and despite increasing in 2012 are still below 2008 levels. Generally, declines in small aircraft movements (< 2 tonne) have been offset by gains of aircraft in the medium weight categories (4‐9 tonne).

Figure 2‐7: Annual Itinerant at Muskoka Airport by Aircraft Weight, 1997 to 2012

‐

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

2,750

3,000

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12est

Excluding PistonJet engines Turbo‐propellers

Helicopters Gliders

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12est

All and Under 2,000 kg Total itinerant 2,000 kg and under

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure 2‐8: Annual Itinerant at Muskoka Airport by Aircraft Weight, 1997 to 2012

TRENDS IN GENERAL AVIATION (GA) IN CANADA

Overall, GA has been slowly declining in Canada for more than 20 years, although this varies by GA segment. The segments which have declined in the past 10 years (2001‐2011) include:

Movements of piston aircraft, the largest segment of GA, have declined 40% (5.1% /year). This is consistent with the trend in the US, where hours flown by piston aircraft have declined by an average of 4.1% per year over that period;

Private aircraft movements declined 26% (3.0%/year)

Local movements declined 39% (4.9%/year)

The jet and turboprop segments of GA are, however, increasing – between 2001 & 2011:

Jet movements increased 8% (0.8%/year)

Turboprop movements increased by 35% (3.0/year)

A similar trend in turbine aircraft activity is also occurring in the US, but growth in activity has been lower in the US – growth for jets of 1.9%/year and turboprops of 1.4%/year. Jet and turboprop movements in Canada have recovered strongly from recession with 6‐7%/year growth between 2009 and 2011. In the US, 2/3rd of GA activity is related by business activity. Muskoka traffic has generally followed the overall trend for GA in Canada.

‐

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12est

Over 2,000 kg 2,001 to 4,000 kg 4,001 to 5,670 kg

5,671 to 9,000 kg 9,001 to 18,000 kg

18,001 to 35,000 kg 35,001 kg and over

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure 2‐9. Aircraft Sales by Engine Type, 2000 to 2011

Future activity in GA is reflected partly in the demand for new GA aircraft. As shown in Figure 2‐9, production of GA aircraft dropped following 2008 recession to under half the 2007 value, and there has been little growth since 2009. This is due partly to the average price of GA aircraft increasing by 90%. Production levels of piston and jet aircraft are both down sharply, while production of turboprops is up slightly. The introduction of very light jets (VLJs) in the mid‐2000s spurred optimism for a resurgence in GA, but so far they have not been realizing the high expectations. The largest selling VLJ initially, the Eclipse 500, had problems and production ceased 2008. Embraer’s Phenom 100 was the second highest selling GA aircraft in 2010 with 100 sold, but sold less than 50 in 2011.

FAA forecasts a slow decline in piston movements (‐0.1%/year) and growth in turbine (jet & turboprop) GA movements of 4%/year for next 20 years, with overall GA growth 1.7%/year.

TRENDS IN GA AT OTHER ONTARIO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

As with the Muskoka Airport, traffic has generally declined at the smaller Ontario municipal airports. Stats show that at the 14 airports without towers or FSS’s reporting traffic from 1997 to 2011:

Total movements declined by 1.3%/yr with local movements declining by 4.1%, but itinerant

traffic increasing by 1.7%/yr

The decline has been more prominent since 2006

At another 6 of these airports, traffic declined so significantly that the airport stopped reporting

traffic

At the 5 Municipal airports with FSS’s, from 1997 to 2011 traffic also declined but not quite as

quickly (‐0.9%/yr), although both itinerant and local movements declined

At Muskoka, total traffic has been very volatile, but generally at the same level in 2011 as in 2001 or 1997 but less than 1998/2000 peak, though itinerant is down (13%), while local is steady or slightly up over this period.

CURRENT AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY

In 2011 the airport had a total of 17,020 aircraft movements, 11,287 (66%) were itinerant and 5,733 (34%) were local. A breakdown of the 2011 movements by runway, fixed wing/helicopter, IFR/VFR and approach type is presented in Table 2‐x. Runway 36 was used most often, accounting for 56% of

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


itinerant movements. The grass runway, Runway 09‐27, was used for only 237 movements, most of which used Runway 27. Total use of 09‐27 accounted for 2% of itinerant movements. Usage of the grass runway has been very low, ranging from 181 to 260, over the past 9 years. Helicopters (not using a runway) accounted for 563 movements, 5% of itinerant movements. Almost a quarter of itinerant movements were IFR, while missed approaches accounted for a relatively high proportion of itinerant movements at 4%1.

Table 2‐4: Summary of Movements at Muskoka Airport in 2011

Segment Runway Movements % of Itin. IFR % IFR Arrive Depart

Itinerant 18 3,789 34% 925 24% 1,933 1,856 36 6,267 56% 1,463 23% 3,060 3,207

9 57 0.5% 1 2% 36 21 27 180 1.6% 3 2% 122 58

Helicopter 563 5% 2 0% 286 277 Missed Approach 431 4% 156 36% 216 215

Total Itinerant 11,287 100% 2,550 23% 5,653 5,634

Local 5,733 34% of total

Total 17,020

Source: Statistics Canada NCAMS data

As shown in Figure 2‐10, 7,319 movements at the airport in 2011 were by piston aircraft, 65% of itinerant movements, while turboprops accounted for 15% and helicopters 8% of itinerant movements. Corporate jets had 603 movements (5%) and regional and narrow‐body jets had 40 movements (0.4%) in 2011. Only piston, small turboprops and rotary wing aircraft used the grass runway. US registered aircraft had 580 movements, accounting for 5% of itinerant movements. Almost 2,000 movements were operated by air carriers with a flight number.

Figure 2‐10: Itinerant Movements at Muskoka Airport by Runway and Aircraft Category

1 This is a high level of missed approaches. This is generally due to training operations where operators are practicing missing approaches.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

18 36 9 27 Helicopter Area

HelicopterPistonSmall TurbopropMedium TurbopropLarge TurbopropCorporate JetRegional Jet

9517,3191,699524147603

Runway

Itinerant Movements

Source: Statistics Canada NCAMS

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


While most of the aircraft activity at the airport is generally by smaller aircraft as illustrated above, there is an interesting component of traffic with large aircraft, above 20 tonnes. A breakdown of the 171 movements of aircraft over 20 tonnes is provided in Table 2‐5.

Table 2‐5. Summary of Movements of Aircraft over 20 Tonnes in 2011

Owner Type

Carrier ID Aircraft Manufacturer Model Aircraft Category Weight (t)

# Engines

Move-ments

Carrier BRMA, TRKR, CFC C30J Lockheed C130J Hercules Large Turboprop 74 2 8

Carrier TIGR, CNUK, CFC C130 Lockheed C-130 Hercules Large Turboprop 70 4 82 Carrier VPCNI MD87 McDonnell

Douglas MD-87 Medium Jet 64 2 2

Private - US B737 Boeing 737-2R8C Medium Jet 63 2 2 Private - Canada E190 Embraer 190 Regional Jet 48 2 3 Private - Canada G550 Gulfstream GV-SP Corporate Jet 42 2 4 Private - US GLF5 Gulfstream G V Corporate Jet 41 2 8 Carrier JZA CRJ9 Bombardier Inc. RJ900 Regional Jet 38 2 1 Private - US GLF4 Gulfstream G IV Corporate Jet 33 2 12 Private - US GLF3 Gulfstream G-1159A Corporate Jet 31 2 2 Carrier JZA CRJ2 Bombardier Inc. RJ200 Regional Jet 23 2 26 Carrier CAV AT72 Aerospatiale ATR 72-500 Large Turboprop 23 2 2 Private - Canada A748 British Aerospace 748 Large Turboprop 21 2 1 Carrier WATER F900 Dassault Aviation Mystere Falcon

900 Corporate Jet 21 2 12


Table 2‐6: Summary of Movements by Aircraft Owner 2011

The most common large aircraft to use the airport are the C‐130 Hercules with 82 movements, and Jazz CRJ‐200s with 26 movements. Excluded from this table were C‐17 Globemaster movements that accounted for 6 missed approaches. These aircraft occasionally do fly bys en‐route to/from CFB Trenton. The C‐130 flights are operated by DND for searh and rescue operations. DND chooses to operate these flights from YQA due to the long, wide runway, low flight activity in the area and closeness to CFB Trenton. These flights provide significant revenue to the airport, in terms of fuel sales.

Activity at the airport by aircraft owner is summarised in Table 2.6 at right. The most frequent user,

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


accounting for 542 flights in 2011, was Sierra Fox Inc, which is the owner of the Ferrari Flight Training school at the airport. Other flight school activity is quite prevalent, with the Brampton Flying Club recording 380 movements, Seneca College 311, Island Air Flight School 188, the Wellington Flying Club 86 and B.P Flight Training Inc 65. The second most frequent user was Toronto Airways, a commercial operator, accounting for 480 movements, in most cases chartering passengers into and out of Muskoka for tourism/cottage activities. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources aircraft accounted for the next highest number of movements at the airport with a total of 466 in 2011. The other users were a wide mix of commercial operators, chartered aircraft, private flights by both based and visiting aircraft and other government operations

Activity at the airport is very seasonal, as shown in Figure 2‐11, with five times as many movements in the busiest month, July, as in the quietest months (December to February). This reflects the summer tourism focus of the airport. July as the busiest month had a total of 2,785 movements, with 1,896 (2/3) being itinerant and the other 916 (1/3) local.

Activity also varies significantly over the days of the week. As shown in Figure 2‐11, Friday is the busiest day in July with an average of 80 itinerant movements and 38 local movements. Thursday is the next busiest, due largely to high local activity, followed by Saturday due largely to high itinerant activity.

Figure 2‐10: Movements at Muskoka Airport in 2011 by Month

If we look at the average distribution of traffic over the days of the week using the total annual activity, as illustrated in Figure 2‐12, we find that Friday is still typically the busiest day, but traffic in this case is more equally distributed over the different days than it is during the peak summer months.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Movements per Month

Local

Itinerant


PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure 2‐11: Movements at Muskoka Airport in 2011 by Day of Week in Busiest Month (July)

Figure 2‐13 shows the hourly distribution of traffic averaged over all of the days of the year. This traffic is shown to build up over the morning hours to 11 am, settle into a certain activity level through the mid day through to about 3pm and then slowly decline throughout the afternoon and evening periods. The average hourly traffic during this mid afternoon period is about 5 movements per hour.

Figure 2‐12. Movements at Muskoka Airport in 2011 by Day of Week Averaged over the Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Mon Tues Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Movements on Day

Local

Itinerant


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mon Tues Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Movements on Day

Local

Itinerant

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure 2‐13: Movements at Muskoka Airport in 2011 by Hour of the Day Averaged over Year

During the peak month of July, hourly activity shows quite a different pattern than the yearly average. In this case, activity is greatest between 9 and 10 am averaging close to 12 movements per hour, due largely to the high number of local movements. Itinerant movements, like in the previous graph, don’t vary greatly during the day‐time period, 9 am to 5 pm, ranging from 4 to 7 movements per hour on average, but they do tend to peak earlier at 9, 10 and 11 am.

Figure 2‐15 illustrates the frequency distribution of hourly itinerant traffic at the airport. This graph shows that the busiest hour recorded by the NavCanada data had 24 itinerant movements. This occurred between 11am and 12 noon on April 7, 2011.

Figure 2‐14. Movements at Muskoka Airport in 2011 by Hour of the Day in Busiest Month (July)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Movements per Hour

Hour

Local

Itinerant

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Movements per Hour

Hour

Local

Itinerant


PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


A commonly accepted definition for “design peak hour” movements at airports is defined as a “95th percentile” traffic level. This means that at this particular traffic level, 95% of hourly movements would be accommodated in hours with less than this level of traffic, while there would be 5% of movements that would occur in hours with higher traffic than this level. For 2011, the 95th %tile itinerant traffic peak would be 12 movements per hour.

Figure 2‐15. Frequency Distribution of Hourly Itinerant Aircraft Movements at Muskoka

Figure 2‐16 illustrates the same distribution as the above figure, but in this case for Total aircraft movements (i.e. itinerant + local). In this case, the busiest hour in the year had a total of 55 movements and this occurred on August 12 between 7pm and d8pm. The 95th %tile or “design peal hour” for total movements is shown as 28 movements per hour, so we could anticipate a typical design peak could consist of 12 itinerant operations and 16 local movements.

Figure 2‐16. Frequency Distribution of Hourly Itinerant + Local Aircraft Movements at Muskoka

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


2.5 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT

In 1996, the District acquired the multi‐million dollar airport facility for $1.00 from Transport Canada. At the time, the airfield was in good condition, but the buildings and vehicle fleet were dated and there was no established reserve to fund ongoing costs.

The objective of airport financial management is to provide facilities in a cost effective manner, i.e., to obtain maximum benefits while limiting municipal costs to a level commensurate with municipal needs and benefits. The following section describes the current and historical financial situation at the airport and provides commentary on how well the District has achieved these financial management objectives.

REVENUES

Airport revenue is income received by the airport, derived from business activities conducted at the airport.

Revenues are typically categorized as “aeronautical” or “non‐aeronautical”.

Aeronautical revenues are directly associated with aircraft operations and passenger processing on the airfield and in the terminal. Aeronautical revenues typically include charges levied on a per aircraft basis, and charges levied on a per passenger basis. Aeronautical revenues can include: landing fees, terminal fees, aircraft parking fees, bridge fees, tie‐down fees, call‐out charges, fuel concessions, airport noise fees, security fees, passenger service charges, ground handling charges, emissions‐related aircraft charges, etc.

Non‐Aeronautical revenues are derived from activities that are not directly related to the operation of aircraft, including land leases (or sales) airside and groundside, space leases in the terminal building, food and beverage, and retail concessions, car rental concessions, vehicle parking, advertising, etc.

Airport revenues are driven by a number of factors, including but not limited to: the economic environment; the governance and management model; traffic; lease agreements; legislation and regulation; number and diversity of concessions; numbers and types of based tenants, etc.

In general, revenues from operation of the airport are used to cover airport operations, maintenance and capital improvement expenditures. Generating revenues is also critical to support airport growth.

There are generally three areas of potential revenue for an airport:

Airport User Fees – those charges which the airport owner assesses the user as a share of the cost for using airport facilities or providing services

Lease of Land and Building Space to Aviation Interests for their commercial or personal use and benefit

Lease of Land and Building Space to Non‐Aviation Interests for their commercial or personal use and benefit

Airport revenues are earned through based tenants, and other operators:

Air carriers (scheduled and charter) and airline servicing companies (ground handling, catering) who are direct customers of many airport services;

General aviation (flight training schools, corporate, private, public service operators, flying clubs);

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Aircraft / aviation services (fixed based operators, aircraft assembly, maintenance and repair organizations, aircraft sales / rentals);

Airport commercial services (food & beverage, retail);

Ground transportation (car rental, taxi licenses, buses);

Logistics / freight forwarding operators;

Other industrial / commercial;

Government agencies (although some receive free space);

Agricultural (e.g. farming) (insufficient available land at Muskoka); and

Recreational (e.g. golf course) (insufficient available land at Muskoka).

As Muskoka airport is a general aviation airport, which has limited available land, the revenue generating focus is on GA activities and aircraft and aviation services.

Within their unique environment, airports should attempt to operate in a business like fashion to the greatest extent possible. As such, airport management should have in place the following tools to facilitate the planning and implementation of a revenue generation program:

Guiding policies defining whether each user will pay a fair share or some users will pay more than others;

Standards for rental rate calculations defining what components are included and the formula used;

Standard leases to define responsibilities, cost and profit sharing;

Records of financial information for cost/revenue analysis.

Detailed revenue data for the Muskoka airport was available for 2009‐2011. Figure 2‐17 shows that net operating revenues increased from $441K in 2009 to $553K in 2011 representing a 25% increase during this period. These figures include net fuel sales (gross sales less cost of sales) as aeronautical revenue, to better compare with airports that do not operate a fuel concession themselves. The ‘sale of assets’ ($104K in 2009 and $46K in 2011) has also been removed, as has grants ($10K in 2010). This increase in operating revenue is consistent with the trend of increased jet and turboprop traffic at the airport, as described in the earlier section. Note that the 2010 revenues are particularly high due to the G8 Summit that took place in the area.

Typically the major source of revenue at airports is based on the numbers of aircraft landing at, and passengers flowing through, the airport. This traffic is variable and is influenced by external factors outside of the airport operator’s control. Traffic is dependent on a number of things such as aircraft operator decisions, the economic situation, passengers’ propensity to travel, competing airports and other modes of travel. Most airports aim to maximize non‐aeronautical revenue and to reduce reliance on aeronautical revenue in an effort to protect themselves in the event of major traffic declines. They do this by diversifying their revenue sources and finding ways to bring in steady streams of revenue to help cover the fixed costs associated with operating an airport. This is typically accomplished by capturing any available commercial opportunities, e.g., leasing (or selling) underutilized land (airside or groundside), food and beverage concessions, retail concessions, etc.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure 2‐17: Airport Revenues: Aeronautical vs Non‐Aeronautical 2009‐2011

Figure 2‐17 also shows the airport’s heavy reliance on aeronautical revenues which account for approximately 75% of total revenues.

Aeronautical Revenues

Aeronautical revenue at the Muskoka airport includes net fuel sales, call‐out fees, ramp fees (landing, parking, GPU), and miscellaneous (catering sales, pilot supplies/hats, and sewage service charge).

Aeronautical revenue at the airport increased from $337K in 2009 to $416K in 2011 representing a 23% increase during this period. Call out fees increased the most (99%) followed by ramp fees (46%) and net fuel sales (17%).

Figure 2‐18: Airport Revenues: Aeronautical Revenue Breakdown 2009‐2011

$336,629

$433,930 $415,729

$104,743

$153,802 $137,531

$‐

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

2009 2010 2011

Muskoka Airport ‐ RevenuesAeronautical Non‐Aeronautical

$17,752 $24,661 $16,263

$73,642

$119,492 $107,821

$6,900

$10,100 $13,705

$238,335

$279,677 $277,940

$‐

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

2009 2010 2011

Muskoka Airport ‐ Aeronautical Revenues

Net Fuel Sales

Fees ‐ Call‐Outs

Fees ‐ Ramp

Fees ‐Miscellaneous

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Net fuel sales are by far the largest aeronautical revenue generator at the airport representing between 65‐70% of total aeronautical revenue, or 50% of total operating revenue (excluding grants and land sales).

The airport operates the fuel facilities and services at the airport, selling approximately 1 million litres of fuel a year; mostly jet fuel (90%). Ornge is by far the largest purchaser of jet fuel at the airport (30‐40% of total fuel by volume2). In 2011, gross fuel sales revenue was $1.6 million, or an average of $1.61 per litre. Net fuel revenue in 2011 was $278K or approximately $0.28 per litre. If staffing costs are added to the cost of providing the fuel service, the airport generates approximately $0.18 per litre in net revenue which is a reasonable return.

Approximately $15K ‐ $23K per year in net fuel revenue is attributable to piston aircraft ($4‐6 per landing) compared to an estimated +/‐ $250K year in net fuel revenue attributable to turboprop and jet aircraft. While piston aircraft do not generate much in fuel revenue (or pay landing fees), they do generate land rents and are economic generators for the region.

Ramp fees include aircraft parking, landing fees, and GPU usage, and generate approximately $100K a year in aeronautical revenue. Landing fees generate the most ramp revenue (80%) followed by aircraft parking (15‐20%). Ramp fee revenue increased 10% between 2010 and 2011.

Landing fees are charged for the use of the runways, taxiways and aprons that aircraft use. In 2011, landing fee revenue at the Muskoka Airport was $89K representing a 5% increase over 2010. Some airports charge different fees for based aircraft and visiting aircraft. Muskoka does not charge landing fees for based aircraft weighing less than 5,000 kg i.e., piston and small turboprop aircraft. The average landing fee at Muskoka in 2011 was $16; however over 75% of the aircraft landing at the airport do not pay landing fees; therefore the average landing fee of paying aircraft was about $6.

Figure 2‐19: Fuel Sales by Volume 2008‐2011

2 While the local based operator purchases a lot of fuel at the airport, these fuel purchases are not all necessarily related to local EMS services.

92,073 91,209 90,269 83,615

686,831 678,637 884,931 901,607

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

2008 2009 2010 2011

Litres Sold

Muskoka Airport ‐ Fuel Sales (L)

TFA‐1

100LL

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure 2‐20: Fuel Sales and Costs in Dollars 2009‐2011

As shown in Figure 2‐22, Muskoka Airport’s landing fees are a little higher compared to others for corporate and regional jets (particularly Peterborough); but on par for medium and small turboprops and piston aircraft.

Figure 2‐21: Airport Ramp Fees 2010‐2011

$238,335 $279,677 $277,940

$‐

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

2009 2010 2011

Muskoka Airport ‐ Fuel Sales ($)

Fuel Sales Aviation Fuel (cost of sales) Net Fuel Sales

$15,397 $21,174

$85,142 $89,275

$1,860

$1,680

$‐

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

2010 2011

Muskoka Airport Ramp Fees (2010‐2011)

GPU Usage Fees

Landing Fees

Aircraft Parking Fees

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure 2‐22: Landing Fee Comparison (non‐based aircraft)

In 2011, aircraft parking revenue was $21K, which is a 31% increase from 2010. Aircraft parking revenue represents approximately 15‐20% of ramp fee revenue and 5% of total aeronautical revenue. Aircraft parking is generally charged by the amount of time the aircraft is parked on the ramp, with charge rates depending on the maximum take‐off weight (MTOW) of the aircraft and/or the engine type. Muskoka Airport’s parking fees for non‐based aircraft are lower than the average of the comparison airports for larger corporate and regional jets (average $49), medium turboprops and smaller corporate jets (average difference $27), and for smaller turboprops (average $20). However, Muskoka’s rates are higher than average for piston aircraft (average $10).

Figure 2‐23: Overnight Parking Fee Comparison (non‐based aircraft)

$105

$48$40

$0

$120

$48

$28

$0

$70

$50

$35

$0

$115

$58 $58

$0

$105

$42

$26

$0

$116

$42

$26

$0

$‐

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

CL60(corp. jet)

B1900(Medium Turboprop)

PC‐12 (Small Turboprop)

C172 (Piston)

Landing Fee Comparison (non‐based)Muskoka Lake Simcoe Peterborough Niagara District Oshawa Kingston

$40

$25 $25

$15

$78

$29

$17

$10$15 $15 $15

$8

$20$16

$12$8

$75

$40 $40

$10

$69

$37

$21

$11

$‐

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

CL60(corp. jet)

B1900(Medium Turboprop)

PC‐12 (Small Turboprop)

C172 (Piston)

Overnight Parking Fee Comparison (non‐based)

Muskoka Lake Simcoe Peterborough Niagara District Oshawa Kingston

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Airport Improvement Fee

Airport Improvement Fees (AIFs) have become common place at airports in Canada and around the world, to help fund capital improvements. AIFs are typically charged on a per passenger basis on scheduled flights, with carriers collecting and remitting the AIF to the airport. As Muskoka does not have scheduled service, an AIF administered in the traditional fashion is not possible. However, charging an AIF type fee at a GA airport is possible; however not commonplace. For example, the Oshawa Airport charges an AIF as follows:

Table 2‐6: Oshawa Municipal Airport AIF Structure

OSHAWA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIF (effective July 1, 2011)

Private Commercial

Oshawa Based Aircraft (effective Oct 1, 2011) $60 annually $100 annually

Non‐Oshawa Airport Tenants < 2,000 kg n/a

Non‐Oshawa Airport Tenants 2,000 kg‐ 3,999 kg n/a

Non‐Oshawa Airport Tenants 4,000 kg‐ 4,999 kg $10 / landing




Non‐Oshawa Airport Tenants 45,000 kg + $30/ landing

A similar AIF rate structure at Muskoka would result in an increase of approximately $18K in revenue each year (based on 2011 traffic) which could be used to offset the District’s contribution to capital reserve. If itinerant aircraft weighting less than 4,000 kg were charged $5 per landing versus being exempt, this amount could increase to $38K3.

Non‐Aeronautical Revenues

Non‐aeronautical revenue at Muskoka Airport includes rent (tenant land leases, office rent, covered tie‐downs, and airport maintenance charges) and other small items such as vending machine sales. It excludes sale of assets and grants as this skews the results and makes it difficult to compare to other airports that do not sell land; however other airports lease land and lease revenues may be included. At Muskoka, land sales revenues are transferred to the Capital Reserve, so this in itself tends to skew the results in that Muskoka therefore cannot account for annual lease rents for the properties sold.

Non‐aeronautical revenue (excl. grants and sales of assets) increased from $105K to $138K between 2009 and 2011 which is a 31% increase during this time period. Rent accounts for the largest proportion of non‐aeronautical revenue (90%), and increased 34% during this two year period; not due to fee increases (other than CPI), but rather due to the addition of several new tenants.

Muskoka Airport does not currently generate revenues from vehicle parking, cafe/restaurant, car rental/ground transport, or small retail concessions.

3 These estimates are provided only for discussion purposes and none of these have been incorporated into any of the financial analyses or recommendations later in this report.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Land Sales Revenue

The Airport is one of only several in Ontario (and in Canada) that sell airport lands versus leasing them. Muskoka has in place a documented “Land Sale, Lease and Rental Policy”. The purpose of the land sale policy is to “encourage growth and development of the airport for aviation purposes as an important economic generator for the area”.

Figure 2‐24: Non Aeronautical Revenues 2009 – 2011

Key elements of the policy include:

land is only considered for sale if it is for commercial (aviation) purposes;

tenants are required to meet the legislative and regulatory requirements of all three levels of government;

final decision on any sale rests with the District;

no temporary structures or buildings are permitted on leased or purchased sites other than during the construction period (maximum 1 year);

new tenants (after 2001) are required to invest at least $75,000;

the District retains the right of first refusal on any sale of property by an owner; and

the cost of disbursements (e.g. survey, appraisal, etc.) are added to the sale price.

The process for land sales is illustrated in Figure 2‐25.

Existing tenants in the year 2000 had until the end of the calendar year to purchase their sites subject to the principles outlined in the policy and subject to approval by District Council. At that time, initial sales were completed with four airport tenants, representing 22,450m2 (5.5 acres) of airside land.

Effective January 1, 2001, land is only considered for sale for commercial (aviation) purposes. Since 2000, a total of nine (i.e., five additional) land sales have been completed, representing 40,700m2 (10.6 acres) of land. All commercial development since 2001 has been on purchased land. At the time of this study 9 of the 27 lots (33%) were owned privately; and all available land was either owned or leased,

$94,669

$143,020 $126,681

$9,600

$9,900

$10,197

$‐

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

2009 2010 2011

Muskoka Airport ‐ Non‐Aeronautical Revenues

Recovery of Write‐Off

Rent ‐ Airport

Sales ‐ Vending Machine

Rent

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


except for 2 lots still left undeveloped (and for which there is interest from a number of potential users)4.

Figure 2‐25: Process for Selling Airport Lands

Land sales prices depend on appraised value (fair market value), which changes depending on year (time) and the location of the parcel at the airport. In accordance with municipal bylaw 2003‐52, at least one appraisal is required for each sale, and the appraisal is used as guide for Council when setting sale price, in addition to history or related properties. Land sales revenue is deposited in the Capital Reserve. On average, the District has received about $60,000 per acre of land sold in sales recorded in the 2005‐2010 period. More recent appraisals since then have valued the lands at around $ 75,000 per acre. Tenants located on owned land at the airport also pay a $0.80/m2/year airport maintenance charge (AMC).

Based on several land appraisals reviewed, the methodology employed by the appraiser is the comparable sales methodology. The appraiser appears to be comparing against other industrial properties in Muskoka, and especially un‐serviced industrial parcels, as the airport does not provide water and sewer services. As well, the appraiser compares to previous airport sales (which were themselves appraised by comparing to other industrial lands). This approach is generally the standard in

4 An additional lot become available as a result of a lease termination in late 2011 making a total of 2 lots available.

Application to Purchase Land

Report to PED Committee(to initiate sale proceedings)

Professional Land Appraisal(Fair Market Value)

Appraisal value shared with PED Committee & an acceptable sale price determined(using the fair market value as a guide)

Sale price conveyed to Purchaser

Purchaser submits letter of intent confirming: - purchase price- intended usage for the property- acceptance of Muskoka’s Airport Land Sales Policy

Legal Department prepares an “Offer to Purchase”

Report to PED Committee recommending acceptance of “Offer to Purchase”

Subject Lands Declared Surplus

Sale finalized by Legal Department(following Public Notice of Sale)

Lower Purchase price proposal shared with PED

Committee & an acceptable sale price

determined

If all three conditions are met (Price, Usage, Policy)

If a lower purchase price is proposed(and other two conditions are met)

“YES”to lower

price

“NO”to lower

price

Once Offer is executed and returned to DMM

Muskoka Airport Land Sale Process

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Canada (i.e., comparing to similar industrial lands in the adjacent area, whether serviced or un‐serviced, as appropriate).

Figure 2‐26: Airport Land Sales Since 2000

The appraisers’ reports indicate that there are 3 standard approaches to establishing fair market value in Canada (and this is generally the case elsewhere as well). These are:

Comparison approach;

Cost approach; and

Income approach.

The appraisal reports then choose to use the comparison approach as they say that the cost approach is typically applied to land with buildings and that the income approach is more appropriate for income producing properties.

In the US, the standard approach tends to be to compare against other comparable airports, but then there tend to be more airports in the US. For instance, an ACRP Guidebook5 states that “the value of airport property is usually dictated by location, size, uses and income generating potential. The ACRP report suggests comparing lease rates at comparable sized airports offering similar levels of service. Market area, size of airport and demographics of the region should all be considered when establishing comparables as well as the number of based aircraft, size of based aircraft, and indicators of traffic volume (incl. fuel volume). As shown in the table below, the base lease rate at Muskoka for un‐serviced land is $0.58 / m2 less than at Lake Simcoe, and the AMC is $0.20 less, for a total of $0.78 / m2

5 ACRP Report 47 “Guidebook for Developing and Leasing Airport Property”, Section 4.5 “Valuation”

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


difference. This is a significant difference that would result in greater revenues to the airport, if captured.

Based on this review of current appraisals at the airport, we would conclude that these have been significantly undervaluing the airport lands. We feel that the approach of comparing with un‐serviced industrial lands in the adjacent region (while appropriate to some extent) has been used in an unfair way. In fact, airport lands are valued less than these similar lands due to a number of “market” and “restriction” reasons. But on the other hand, the approach ignores the fact that the airport lands are not really fully “un‐serviced”. They do provide some level of improvements in terms of road access, taxiway access, grading and drainage improvements, etc. If the airport lands were valued similar to the industrial lands, their value would actually be in the range of about $ 100,000 per acre instead of about $ 75,000. Valuing these lands by comparing to competing airports like Lake Simcoe, would value the lands at over $ 120,000 per acre. And we will illustrate later in this report that valuing the lands on a cost approach would put the value of the lands at between $ 100,000 and $ 160,000 per acre.

Table 2‐7: Comparison of Lease Rates with Other Airports (Lake Simcoe Airport)

Base Lease Rate / yr AMC / yr Total

Muskoka $0.91 / m2 (un‐serviced)

escalates with CPI

$0.80 / m2

reviewed every 5 yrs

$1.71 / m2 (excl. tax)

Lake Simcoe $3.34 /m2t2 (serviced)

$1.49 m2 (un‐serviced)

$1.08 / m2 $4.48 / m2 (serviced)

$2.57 / m2 (un‐serviced)

Parry Sound N/A N/A N/A

Peterborough N/A N/A N/A

Tenants leasing land at the airport pay a total of $1.71/m2/yr + tax ($0.91/m2/yr base lease rate, plus the AMC of $0.80/m2/yr), plus realty taxes as valued by MPIC. The airport pays the property taxes upfront and is then reimbursed by tenants. Base lease rates and the rates described in individual leases are adjusted annually on the lease anniversary date based on the December to December Consumer Price Index (CPI) percentage. The lease rate therefore increases with CPI; however the AMC remains stable until airport management makes changes. The lease rate and AMC fee are reviewed, according to bylaw, every five years to ensure they are near a fair market value.

Whether an airport sells or leases land, the following general principles should apply:

Protect the aeronautical requirements of the airport;

Highest and best long‐term use of the land; and

Inspire growth and development of aviation purposes and attract general industry to the Region.

The benefits and challenges of selling land versus leasing are summarized in the table below.

The principles as outlined in the District’s land use policy for the most part meet the best practices as outlined in the table above; with one key exception: the minimum development investment by land owners in Muskoka is minimal ($75K), particularly given the limited supply of available land. Based on

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


the value of construction and making the best use of land, this number should probably be 2 to 3 times higher.

The land sale policy has probably generated in the order of about $ 500,000 in revenue (in today’s dollars) to the District for use on capital projects since 2000. On the other hand, if we estimate the value of the “lost annual revenue” due to land sales, this could be in the range of say $40,0006 per year or close to 15% of the annual deficit (assuming that land sales account for about half of the current developed lands). So the discussion of land sales vs land lease really becomes one of where do we want the money to go, and where would the money be best allocated. More insight is provided on this topic later in the financial analysis and forecasts section.

Table 2‐8: Comparison of Leasing vs Selling Lands

SELLING AIRPORT LANDS LEASING AIRPORT LANDS

Benefits

Immediate cash infusion

Can provide funds for future airport development

Is attractive to more businesses and investors

Provides opportunities for greater economic benefits due to increased investments

Downloads servicing and access costs to proponents

Challenges

Limits future airport expansion (once the land is gone, it’s gone)

Airport owner not in control of lands; however can set development terms

Available capacity could be controlled by “tenants”

Best Practices

Airport owner approval of all land sales and subsequent development proposals

Airside parcels for aviation use only and charged user fees

Minimum parcel size (e.g., 1 acre)

Minimum investment (e.g. $1‐5M)

Maximum time limit to build (e.g., within 1 year)

Mandatory AMC agreement for airside lots)

Mandatory airport site plan agreement consistent with Master Plan and Land Use Plan

Proceeds from land sales to a dedicated airport reserve fund

Benefits

Ongoing revenue stream (land rental)

Airport owner in control of development and land uses

Better control over open and competitive access to service providers

Available capacity controlled by airport owner; fosters competitiveness and service

Challenges

Tenants have more difficult to secure financing for capital projects

Tenants generally request serviced parcels

Best Practices

Market rates (with escalation)

Incentives

Airport owner management control of land (incl. sub‐leases)

Development standards to ensure quality and consistency in buildings

6 This is calculated as approximately 10 acres (41,000m2) that are leased instead of sold at $0.9 per m2 annually

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


OPERATING EXPENSES

Airports face a number of challenges related to economics and financial viability, including having high fixed costs. Airports are like mini‐cities, and have high infrastructure costs related to terminal buildings, runways, taxiways and aprons, maintenance buildings, specialized vehicles and equipment, parking facilities, security systems, site services (water, sewer, utilities), etc. The cost of acquiring, maintaining and replacing this infrastructure exists even if there is no incoming revenue as an offset. To make this more challenging, many costs, especially for capital and major maintenance, are “lumpy” i.e., very infrequent and very large.

Operating expenses at the Muskoka Airport, as illustrated in Figure 2‐27 (excluding the cost of sales for fuel) have increased from $756.4K in 2009 to $840.3K in 2011. This is an 11% increase during this period; approximately half the rate of overall operating revenue. This is impressive, particularly during a time when the regulatory burden has increased for certified airports (e.g., SMS, wildlife management programs, etc.). As noted on the revenue side, operating expenditures in 2010 were higher due to the G8 Summit, but also due to the accounting for staff sick leave.

Figure 2‐27: Airport Operating 2009 ‐ 2011

The largest operating expenditure categories are salaries and wages (43% of total operating expenses); travel fleet (18%) for District fleet services including fuel, service, limited repairs and replacement costs; and inter‐departmental charges (9%). Other smaller operating expenditures include: office supplies, printing, courier, computer services; materials and equipment; utilities; phones; fuel – fleet and equipment; building maintenance; grounds maintenance; equipment repair; operating supplies; taxes; insurance; advertising and promotion; professional services; aircraft servicing; airport furniture; bank charges; accounts receivable write‐offs; and admin‐planning.

It is difficult to compare operating costs with other airports as not every airport has the same cost structure. For example, not all airports operate an FBO like Muskoka, so therefore their staffing costs will be less, and not all airports are charged for inter‐departmental services, as at Muskoka.

$331,734 $376,640 $363,344

$152,370

$139,563 $139,717

$58,600

$74,332 $77,100

$‐

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

2009 2010 2011

Muskoka Airport ‐ Operating Expenses

Inter‐departmental chargesTravel ‐ Fleet

Salaries & Wages

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


OPERATING INCOME / LOSS

The operating loss at the airport in each of the past three years has been in the order of $300K (see Figure 2‐28 below – note revenue includes net fuel income and excludes the sale of assets and grant revenues, as well as funds transferred to the capital reserve). If revenues from land sales and grants were included in these figures (see Figure 2‐29), the loss would decrease to approximately $241K (in 2011).

Figure 2‐28: .Airport Operating Income (Loss) (Excluding Sale of Assets and Grants) 2009 ‐ 2011

Figure 2‐29: Airport Operating Income (Loss) (Including Sale of Assets and Grants) 2009 ‐ 2011

The positive news is that the annual loss (excluding land sales and grants revenue) has been decreasing in the past few years. However, the average annual loss is larger than that of the average among non‐

$441,372

$587,732 $553,260

$756,403

$881,734 $840,266

‐$315,031 ‐$294,002 ‐$287,006 ‐$400,000

‐$200,000

$‐

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

2009 2010 2011

Muskoka Airport ‐ Operating Income (Loss) Over Expenses (Excluding Sale of Assets & Grants)

TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES

$545,232

$656,179 $599,297

$756,403

$881,734 $840,266

‐$211,171 ‐$225,555 ‐$240,969 ‐$400,000

‐$200,000

$‐

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

2009 2010 2011

Muskoka Airport ‐ Operating Income (Loss) Over Expenses (Including Sale of Assets & Grants)

TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


ACAP eligible municipal airports in Ontario ($142.7K in 2010) and this is larger than its competing airport set as will be shown later in Section 2.6.

It is important to note at this point, however, that it is the overall observation of having a loss larger than the average that is important when comparing against the average among Ontario municipal airports, not the percentage or absolute value. Some airports included in the Ontario average may or may not include fleet replacement costs, internal charges, land sales, grants, etc.

Other reasons for the large deficit can be attributed to:

Small population base. In 2011, the District population was approximately 60,000, excluding the transient and tourist population that occupy cottages and seasonal homes, which can more than double the number of people in the District during the busy summer periods. A small population base means there are less households over which to spread the required tax levy to support the airport and there are less households to generate demand for aircraft services, whether charter, etc.

Lack of industrial activity. The District is heavily reliant on tourism (seasonal) and there is very little industrial or other economic activity in the District. This is a price insensitive sector that could increase revenues, if present, both due to the volume of activity and to price insensitivity;

Relatively small number of based aircraft. There are approximately about 75 based aircraft at the airport, compared to Peterborough with close to 140, or Buttonville with approximately 250+. Based aircraft require hangars and fuel, and often use the services of other tenants such as aircraft maintenance and repair;

Landing fee exemptions and traffic make‐up. While 65% of the traffic at the Muskoka Airport is itinerant, 76% of the traffic are not paying landing fees (65% of itinerant traffic is from piston aircraft);

Lack of available land. Muskoka is out of development ready land to lease or sell; and

Land sale versus lease policy. While the land sales policy is certainly a lure for tenants, sales revenue provides a one‐time cash infusion versus an ongoing revenue stream. The estimated value of the lost annual revenue due to land sales is in the order of $40K7 per year, or close to 15% of the deficit (assuming that land sales account for approximately half of the current developed lands).

Many of the other municipal airports tend to be smaller than Muskoka and hence tend to have lower operating costs as a result, so that the average size of their deficits would tend to be lower.

Taking into account all of the above factors, the size of the Muskoka Airport deficit may not in the end be that much larger than the average of other airports as it would first appear, and in fact, after correcting for differences in accounting, grants, etc, could in fact be nearly in line with many of these other airports. Certainly, in our review we did not find anything out of line in the way the Muskoka Airport conducted its business and accounted for the various financial items.

7 This is calculated as approximately 10 acres (41,000m2) that are leased instead of sold at $0.9 per m2 annually.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


It is important to remember that municipal airports in Canada generally do not generate a profit, or even break‐even (see Section 2.6 for additional information). The majority cannot cover operating costs, let alone capital expenditures. Airports do, however, generate economic value by:

Improving transportation services to business and recreational travellers, corporations and the general public;

Being a key piece of infrastructure in attracting new business / industry;

Providing important emergency medical services to locals that may need to be air lifted to larger centres for important emergency services;

Employing people in the community, both at the Airport and businesses located at the airport; and

Creating opportunities for itinerant air travelers to spend their money in the community (accommodation, restaurants, entertainment).

CAPITAL EXPENSES / RESERVE

The Airport’s budget shows $7.5 million in planned capital expenditures over the next twenty years; $6.7M in the first ten years. (See Table 2‐9). This includes $4M for a runway overlay in 2014 and $2.5M associated with development of the East side lots (some planned for 2012 which has not yet taken place). The amounts for the runway work8 and garage roof replacement appear reasonable. However, the budget in years 10 through 20 appears to be missing some items, such as additional overlays of apron and taxiway pavements that will be required, structural/mechanical/electrical upgrades to the terminal building, potential upgrades to the airfield electrical system, among others. We will account for these items in the revised capital plan financial assessment in Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 5.

Muskoka Airport is not eligible for federal ACAP funding as it does not receive year‐round scheduled passenger service. It is also not eligible for Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (NOHFC) funding due to its geographic location, as are other airports in the ‘north’; however Muskoka is considered to be in the ‘north’ for FedNor purposes. This adds to the challenge of funding major capital projects.

In recent years, Muskoka airport has taken advantage of recent infrastructure programs including:

$400K from the Communities Adjustment Fund for fencing, gates, sand shed and equipment shelter;

$88K from FedNor to extend the taxiway; and

$560K+ in funding from FedNor and $350K from the Government of Norway for the Passenger Terminal expansion and the creation of the Little Norway Memorial.

While infrastructure programs come and go, smart airports are prepared – they know what they need and are ready to submit applications for funding when programs are announced. Like Muskoka, other airports in the area have also been very successful in securing infrastructure funding; some to a much larger scale. For example, Collingwood, Haliburton/Stanhope, Atikokan and Sioux Narrows each

8 We suggest consideration of an alternate approach to the runway overlay which could potentially reduce the cost to about $ 2.5M later in this report. Further discussion is provided in the infrastructure/capital plan section (4.2).

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


received $1.3 ‐ $2.5M from the Building Canada Fund (BCF) for runway work; Red Lake received $4.3M for a terminal replacement; Peterborough received $28.6M through Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (ISF) for apron and runway expansion as well as terminal and groundside development; and Lake Simcoe received $14M for upgrades and expansion.

The District has been prudent by setting aside $400‐$550K a year for recapitalization of assets (major capital), which is equivalent to approximately 1.1‐1.6% of the replacement cost of the assets (valued at approximately $35M). While this is slightly less than the rule of thumb of 1.5‐2% replacement value ($525K ‐ $700K), this is much more than most airports budget (and in fact many don’t budget this at all), and assumes that there will be some external funding available.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Table 2‐9: Current Airport Capital Plan and Planned Expenditures from 2012 Budget

Opening Balance Uncommited Airport Capital Reserve Fund December 2011 1,538,706$ * plan is to contribute $500K / year from taxes

Capital P lan from 2012 budget + 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2031 T OT A L T o tal 2012-2021

Opening Balance $1,538,706 $833,706 $1,158,706 $1,658,706 -$1,841,294 -$1,647,294 -$1,147,294 -$647,294 -$1,164,294 -$664,294 -$164,294

Transfer from Taxes $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,000,000

Revenue from Land Sales

Planned Capex -$1,205,000 -$175,000 -$4,000,000 -$306,000 -$1,017,000 -$775,000 7,478,000-$ 6 ,703,000-$

Year-End Balance - Reserve Fund $833,706 $1,158,706 $1,658,706 -$1,841,294 -$1,647,294 -$1,147,294 -$647,294 -$1,164,294 -$664,294 -$164,294 $4,060,706

TOTAL 2012-2031 7,478,000-$

TOTAL 2012-2021 6,703,000-$

* fund should accommodate 10 year capital plan EXCLUDING the rehab of main runway in 2014. $2M from reserve fund, another $2M from Debt Reduction Reserve Fund

does not account for financing from external sources

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

2.6 COMPARISONS WITH OTHER COMPETING AIRPORTS IN AREA

MUNICIPAL AIRPORTS IN ONTARIO

Muskoka Airport is currently owned and operated by the District of Muskoka and is therefore classified as a municipal airport.

There were 84 municipal airports in Ontario in 2011, excluding the 20+ owned by the Province or in the National Airport System (NAS) airports. As shown in Figure 2‐1, the majority of these airports (46, 55%) are located in the South, while 38 (45%) are in the North. Muskoka Airport is considered ‘North’, although it is quite evidently on the border.

Figure 2‐30: Municipal Airport in Ontario

Of these 84 municipal airports, only 19 (23%) have year‐round scheduled passenger service and are eligible for ACAP funding. Twelve of these are in North and 7 in South. Muskoka Airport has no scheduled service and is not eligible for ACAP funding. The majority (63%) of the municipal airports has runways less than 5,000 ft, but most (80%) are paved.

Generally the financial situation of municipal airports in Ontario is poor. A survey of these airports for FedNor in 2011 (data for 2010) found that 78% (42/53) who responded considered themselves “not financially self sustaining”, i.e., insufficient cash flow to cover operational costs, let alone capital expenditures. Only 1 airport responding considered themselves “viable” i.e., able to cover operating and capital expenditures. Not surprisingly, this airport had significant commercial activity and was ACAP eligible. Eleven responding airports considered themselves “self‐sustaining” i.e., able to cover operating expenses, although the financial reporting is inconsistent, and when details were examined, some of these airports were not in fact self‐sustaining, as in some cases they included “grants” to cover budget deficits as income.

COMPARATIVE AIRPORTS

The above material sets a context within which the Municipal airports in Ontario operate, but what about more direct competitors to the Muskoka airport? For this study and as a requirement of the Terms of Reference, three airports of similar size and function, were chosen as a basis of comparison to the Muskoka airport, because they are considered competitors from a number of perspectives, including

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

that they are general aviation airports that are within a two hour drive of Toronto, equipped with a paved runway and have experienced significant development within the past five years. These include the following:

‐ Peterborough Municipal Airport;

‐ Lake Simcoe Regional Airport;

‐ Parry Sound Municipal Airport.

The airports are discussed in the following paragraphs.

PETERBOROUGH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

The Peterborough Municipal Airport is owned by the City of Peterborough and is currently operated by a private property management firm. By road, the airport is approximately 130 km from Toronto (1 hr/26 min) and 160 km from the Muskoka Airport. The airport is certified and equipped with a paved runway measuring 2,134 m (7,000 ft) by 30.5 m (100 ft) and a grass runway measuring 543 m (1,782 ft) by 30.5 m (100 ft).

The airport dates back to the 1960’s and supported scheduled airline services from the 1970’s to the 1990’s. Currently, it serves general aviation aircraft and a variety of aviation related activities ranging from aircraft maintenance, manufacturing and storage to flight training, charter services and government related aircraft services (RCMP and air ambulance providers). According to the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register, a total of 137 aircraft are based at the airport, comprised of mainly piston aircraft (121), but also some turbo‐fan (9), turbo‐prop (6) and rotary aircraft (1). Non‐aviation activities encompass light industrial and restaurant enterprises.

The airport has undergone significant development to the airfield and commercial lands. Starting in 2009, expansion works totalling $28 million have resulted in an extension of Runway 09‐27 to 7,000ft, extension and strengthening of taxiways and aprons, a new air terminal building and four sites for commercial development encompassing 26.5 hectares of land. These works were funded jointly by the City of Peterborough, Province of Ontario and the federal government through the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund.

The airport plans to upgrade airfield facilities and develop commercial lands to accommodate Seneca College flight training and increase corporate aircraft traffic. This includes apron expansion, paving of the grass runway, extension of Taxiway Bravo to a full length taxiway and expansion and renovation of a city‐owned building.

The airport’s 2009 master plan highlighted the future of Buttonville Airport as having a significant impact on the airport. Forecasts called for 35,120 movements by 2031 in the medium case and 56,179 movements in the high case. The planned closure of Buttonville Airport has already resulted in Seneca College’s decision to relocate its flight training operation to Peterborough Airport. Growth in aircraft movements has been strong in recent years. In 2011, the airport recorded 33,717 aircraft movements, more than tripling from 9,910 movements recorded in 2007. The bulk of this growth has occurred in local movements as growth in itinerant movements has been slower increasing from 5,390 movements in 2007 to 6,657 movements in 2011.

LAKE SIMCOE REGIONAL AIRPORT

The Lake Simcoe Regional Airport is located approximately 115 km from Toronto (1 hr/22 min) and 67 km south of the Muskoka Airport. Ownership of the airport is shared between the City of Barrie (80%) and the Township of Oro‐Medonte (20%) and operation is delegated to a municipal service corporation,

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Inc. The airport is registered and is configured with one paved runway measuring 1,829 m (6,001 ft) in length by 30.5 m (100 ft) in width.

The airport was constructed in 1991 following a recommendation by the Province of Ontario’s Ontario Airport System Plan, to build a new airport for the Barrie area to service a growing population and support economic growth. It currently serves various general aviation aircraft and supports a mix of aviation activities encompassing aircraft service and repair, charter, manufacture and flight training. It is also used as a base by the OPP and Hydro One Helicopters. The Canadian Civil Aircraft Register lists 38 piston powered fixed wing aircraft and 7 turbo‐shaft rotary wing aircraft for a total of 45 aircraft based at the airport.

The airport has grown significantly in size since 1991. Expansion works in 1993 extended the runway to 1,524 m (5,000 ft) and introduced a large apron and a new air terminal building. Since 2009, significant upgrades have been undertaken, including a re‐surfacing and extension of the runway to 1,829 m (6,001 ft), introduction of a partial parallel taxiway and upgrading of fuel equipment and airport infrastructure. Noteworthy, is the development of four commercial areas encompassing fully serviced and un‐serviced lots for general aviation businesses, light corporate and private aircraft hangar development, large scale commercial developments and non‐aviation related uses including agriculture. The cost of the upgrades has totalled $15 million, which has been funded by the City of Barrie, Township of Oro‐Medonte, Province of Ontario and federal government through the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund.

The airport is expected to benefit significantly following the Province of Ontario’s announcement in 2012 identifying and defining the airport as the “Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Economic Employment District” a part of Ontario’s “Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006”, under the province’s “Places to Grow Act, 2005”. Uses permitted under this plan are limited to airport facilities and accessory uses, airport‐related manufacturing, assembly, maintenance, processing, fabrication, storage and warehousing, airport related training facilities, research and wholesaling establishments and office uses.

Growth in aircraft movements has been slow in recent years. In 2007, the airport recorded 19,183 movements and in 2009, peaked at 24,198 before dropping to the 20,500 level in 2010. In 2011, the airport recorded 20,580 aircraft movements. Local movements comprise a significant share of total movements, representing approximately 70% of traffic in 2011 and 67% in 2007. Itinerant movements totalled 6,216 movements in 2007 and peaked at 7,221 movements in 2009 before dropping to 6,144 movements in 2011.

PARRY SOUND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

The Parry Sound Municipal Airport is also located approximately 67 km from the Muskoka Airport, but is situated north of Muskoka. Driving distance from Toronto is 206 km (2 hours/14 min), which makes it the furthest study airport from Toronto. Ownership is jointly held by Seguin Township (80%) and the Town of Parry Sound (20%) and operation is the responsibility of the Parry Sound Area Municipal Airport Commission. The airport is registered and equipped with one paved runway measuring 1,219 m (4,000 ft) by 22.9 m (75 ft).

Parry Sound Municipal Airport was opened in 1979 with one runway, apron and taxiway. It is unique in that it is connected to a float plane base at Robert’s Lake north of the airfield. The airport currently serves general aviation aircraft and aviation related tenants offering aircraft service and repair, manufacture and flight training. A total of 54 aircraft are based at the airport according to the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register, comprised of 53 piston powered fixed wing aircraft and 1 turbo‐shaft helicopter. A significant area of airport lands constitutes the Airport Industrial Park noted for its use by non‐aviation related tenants carrying out light industrial and manufacturing activities.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Recent upgrades and expansion works have focused on increasing the number of hangars, improving provision of utility services (electric, telephone, lighting) and making new power, water and sewer connections. In 2010, a 2 hectare area east of the runway was developed for up to 21 new private hangars and three commercial hangars. In 2012, a training facility was introduced in addition to three hangars. New expansion works have been launched to increase hangars and commercial development. Various sources of funding have been used, including Fednor and the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation.

The airport is keen to attract more corporate aircraft and plans to extend the runway to 1,524 m (5,000 ft) – 1,676 m (5,500 ft) in the long term. In 2009, the airport recorded 7,705 aircraft movements.

COMPARISON

A comparison of the four airports is summarized in Table 2‐10 below, though due to poor availability of information from the Parry Sound Airport, the comparisons are not as complete as would have been desired. The following observations are noted in terms of how Muskoka Airport relates to the three comparison airports:

‐ All airports are municipally owned, but ownership of Muskoka Airport is by the Regional District, which encompasses six area municipalities, whereas it encompasses only one or two at the other airports. Consensus and decision making may be more easily achieved amongst a smaller group of municipalities than in a larger group.

‐ Whereas operation of the Muskoka Airport is managed from a municipal department, at other airports it is carried out by specialized, independent bodies, either municipally controlled or private. Consensus and decision making may be more easily achieved by an independent body.

‐ While Muskoka Airport benefits from a boost in local population from cottagers during the summer months, Peterborough and Lake Simcoe Regional Airports are supported by a significantly larger year‐round population that is experiencing steady growth.

‐ Cottagers also provide an economic boost to the Muskoka economy, but Peterborough and Lake Simcoe Regional Airports are supported by an economic base that is more diverse than in the District of Muskoka and is experiencing growth.

‐ All airports benefit from cottage related tourism, but Lake Simcoe Regional Airport and Parry Sound Municipal, to some extent represent, provide direct competition to Muskoka Airport for cottage traffic in central Ontario, depending on where the cottages are actually located.

‐ The Muskoka Airport is a certified airport, which places it at an advantage over its closest competitors in terms of attracting a scheduled commercial passenger service. Transport Canada regulations require an airport to be certified if serving a scheduled commercial passenger service (though the 2 registered airports could probably easily be certified, if necessary).

‐ Runway length at Muskoka Airport meets the maximum range capability of most piston and turbo‐prop aircraft. Larger jet powered aircraft, such as the Boeing BBJ, however, could opt for an airport with a longer runway, such as Peterborough Municipal Airport, depending on how heavy and far they intended to fly.

‐ Runway width at Muskoka Airport offers the widest runway at 45 m (147.7m), which provides pilots with the greatest margin of safety during take‐off and landing operations, especially during more marginal weather conditions. This can be expected to attract larger aircraft.

‐ All airports could improve their visual aids in support of instrument operations (i.e. approach lighting), but Peterborough Municipal Airport and Lake Simcoe Regional Airport are better equipped than Muskoka Airport, as each offers PAPI units on both approaches.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

‐ In terms of navaids, Muskoka Airport compares well with the other airports, in that it is capable of accommodating non‐precision approaches, but the current limits are to non‐instrument standards and consequently falls behind Lake Simcoe Regional Airport, which offers the best approach limits (370/380 ft, 1.25mi).

‐ The Muskoka Airport compares well with the other airports in terms of aircraft fuel availability, and FBO/passenger services supported by an attractive new air terminal building. It is noted, however, that it is the only airport without a restaurant/cafe on airport lands.

‐ The Muskoka Airport also compares well in terms of the number of businesses based at the airport and the range of aviation related services available. Non‐aviation related activities, however, are limited.

‐ The airport lags behind the others in its ability to accommodate new businesses as the three other airports have developed elaborate commercial areas to serve aviation and non‐aviation related activities.

‐ The airport is second to the Peterborough Municipal Airport in terms of based aircraft, but its ability to expand this number is limited in comparison to the other airports, which are actively developing commercial lands to accommodate based aircraft.

‐ The Muskoka Airport occupies less land than the Peterborough Municipal Airport and Lake Simcoe Regional Airport. This could potentially leave it at a disadvantage in terms of accommodating new development9.

‐ The Muskoka Airport ranks third in terms of aircraft movements recorded in 2011. Growth in movements is slow in comparison to Peterborough Municipal Airport, but comparable to growth at Lake Simcoe Regional Airport. When we look more closely at the make‐up of traffic at these airports and how the different segments of traffic have been growing, we find:

o The Lake Simcoe & Peterborough traffic is primarily local traffic (70‐80%), while Muskoka has double the number of itinerant movements and only ~30% of total movements are local, which puts it on a better financial footing (as local traffic does not pay any fees) and itinerant movements tend to bring tourist business activities to the region;

o Total traffic has been very variable at Lake Simcoe & Peterborough due to the fluctuation in local traffic

o Local movements were declining at both Lake Simcoe & Peterborough in the past, but have increased sharply at Peterborough since 2008 due to Kawartha Lakes Flight Centre Expansion and will increase further with Seneca College’s move to Peterborough

o Itinerant traffic over the past 5‐10 years has increased 50% at Peterborough, but has not changed significantly at Lake Simcoe and Muskoka, though in aggregate, Muskoka currently (2011) handles almost twice the itinerant traffic that the other airports handle;

o Muskoka has experienced much stronger growth in turboprop movements than the other 2 airports, with Muskoka currently handling over 2000 annual turbo prop operations to Peterborough’s 535 and Lake Simcoe’s 774;

9 Comparable site area was not available for Parry Sound Airport. As well, detailed traffic data was also not available for Parry Sound that would allow a more direct comparison like at the other 2 airports.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

o Muskoka handles a significantly larger number of jets than Peterborough and Lake Simcoe, recording 633 jet movements in 2011 compared with 393 and 243 jet movements at Peterborough and Lake Simcoe, respectively. Growth in jet movements at Muskoka is similar to Peterborough and at both airports this has been much greater than at Lake Simcoe.

‐ Based on limited financial performance figures for the three comparison airports, all the airports operate in the red (though no data was available for Lake Simcoe). However, Muskoka appears to be running the largest deficit on operating revenues (though accounting differences might be contributing to much of this difference). But on the other hand, the other airports have been investing significantly into expanded facilities (i.e. spending significant capital) so that looking at the bigger picture, these airports are probably running much higher total financial deficits (and as we will see later, Muskoka does not have to invest much into new facilities in the future, so that on a total cash basis it is possible that Muskoka may have the least financial deficit going forward) .

‐ Upgrades and expansion works at Muskoka Airport have fallen short of those undertaken at the other airports in the past five years, in particular, Peterborough Municipal Airport and Lake Simcoe Regional Airport, where millions of dollars have been spent as noted earlier. Even Parry Sound Municipal Airport has undertaken extensive upgrades.

‐ The three comparative airports currently outpace the Muskoka Airport with regards to future upgrades and expansion plans, as well. These airports are aiming to attract more general aviation activity and, in particular, corporate aviation through runway extensions, expansion of aprons and taxiways, and an increase in commercial development lands and hangars. The commercial development lands are also intended to grow non‐aviation related activities.

So in summary, compared to the three competing airports, Muskoka appears to have the following advantages:

• It has a high concentration of based aircraft servicing firms; full‐service

• Its provision of specialty services is a plus

• It has a competitive runway length and width, and good accessibility due to weather

• It is a year‐round base for public services

• It is a Customs port of entry (though all but Parry Sound have this)

• It has branded fuel (which is important to attract commercial/corporate sector and especially turbos and jets, though only Parry Sound does not have this

• It has a good base of turbo and jet traffic to use as a spring board for additional growth and for revenue purposes

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Table 2‐10: Comparisons with Competing Airports

Muskoka Peterborough Lake Simcoe Parry Sound

Owner/Operator District City/Private Operator City (80%)/Twp (20%) Muni.

Services Corp. Township/Airport

Commission

Population 60,000+ (2011)

Seasonal pop can be double 118.975 (2011)+2.1% from 2006

446,063 (2011)+5.7% from 2006

42,162 (2011)+3.0% from 2006

Economic Sectors Tourism


Industrial, RetailRegional health centre

Post‐secondary

Industrial manufacturingMilitary (CFB Borden) Casino, Post‐secondary

Tourism, RetailRegional heath centre


Aerodrome Status Certified Certified Registered Registered

Runway (longest paved) 6,000’ x 150’ 7,000’ x 100’ 6,000’ x 100’ 4,000’ x 75’

Crosswind 2,200 x 100 turf 1,800 x 100 turf ‐ ‐

Visual Aids, Navaids and Approaches

Medium intensity lighting; PAPI Rwy 18; NDB Best Approach limits: 500 ft, 1.5mi

Medium Intensity lighting; PAPI Rwys 09/27; NDB Best Approach limits: 500 ft, 1.5mi

Medium intensity lighting;PAPI Rwys 10/28; VOR/DME Best Approach limits: 370/380 ft, 1.25mi

Medium intensity lighting; APAPI Rwy 36; NDB Best Approach limits: 500 ft, 1.5mi

Aircraft Services Branded Fuel / oil

Major / minor repair Catering

Branded Fuel / oilMajor / minor repair Catering by FBO

Branded Fuel / oilMajor / minor repair

Catering

Fuel / oil Major / minor repair

Passenger Services

New terminal (vending, Wi‐Fi)AOE/15 and Customs

Car rental& taxi (call‐out) Access to off‐site restaurant

New terminalAOE/15 and Customs

Taxi, car rental (call‐out) Restaurant

Executive passenger lounge(Free Wi‐Fi), AOE/24 and

Customs Car Rental x 3

Newly renovated business centre

Taxi, car rental (call‐out) Café

# of Based Businesses 9 17 8 10

# of Based Aircraft (CCAR) 76 137 45 54

Traffic (Total2011) 17,019 33,717 20,580 7,805 (2009)

Traffic (Itinerant) 11,282 6,651 6,138 ‐

Land 223 h (550 acres)

Limited Developed land Sale / lease

276 h (682 acres)26.5 ha (57 lots) – 4 sites incl.

30 acres of serviced Airport industrial park

240 (595) Commercial Development Plan: 4 areas; serviced and un‐serviced lots

Recent private & commercial hangar development; training facility; industrial expansion

Financial ‐$287K in 2011 (excl. grants &

sale of land revenue) ‐$200K in 2009 ‐

‐$100K (if remove grant, sale of land, & tax revenue

Other Little Norway Memorial $28M expansion (2009 ‐ )

Seneca College flight training

$15M Expansion; “Airport Economic Employment

District”

Airport Industrial Park; numerous hangars; Float

plane base

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

On the other hand, it is weak in a number of particular areas, as follows:

• It currently does not have available developed land, though we will show some 35+ acres can easily be brought on stream,

• It does not have as large a population base on which to draw activity from, though tourism is a growing sector to exploit, and

• It does not have the industrial base that airports like Peterborough and Lake Simcoe have

So what can we conclude from this comparison?

• For its size and location, the airport has good competitive facilities, in many ways as good or better than its competitors, especially in terms of runway length/width/strength (only Lake Simcoe has better approaches in poor weather and Muskoka could easily match this);

• It has a very good concentration of local aviation businesses that can form a nucleus from which to expand;

• Given its population base, it has a reasonable amount of traffic to form a basis for future growth;

• Increased tourism should probably be a key focus for future growth and turbo prop and jet operations should be a focus within this.

2.7 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

In a study of this nature, stakeholder consultations typically involve identifying key stakeholder groups, like tenants, airlines, adjacent property owners, business associations, regulatory agencies, etc. In the case of the latter groups, where there is really only one entity within each category, representatives from each of these groups would be interviewed. However, with the former groups, where there are typically many participants or members, a representative sample, such as 30‐40%, would generally be interviewed. For this particular study, it became clear at the very early stages of the study that there was a lot of interest in the study from current tenants, and that that there were very diverging opinions about the airport and what its future should look like as identified through reading past material on various plans and proposals that had been put forward and had been rejected. These views about diverging visions were re‐enforced after our initial meeting with key staff, the Planning and Economic Development Committee and the Airport Advisory Committee. As a consequence of this, a decision was made to deviate from the original stakeholder consultation plan and instead put together a much broader plan that would solicit interest and input from a much wider group of stakeholders. The groups consulted and the means for the consultations were as follows:

General Public:

o Feedback was obtained through an on‐line survey designed by the consultants;

Tenants:

o One on one interviews were carried out with a long list (majority) of tenants. These

interviews were mostly in person, but a number were also via phone. As well, meetings

were also held with representatives of the adjacent Beaver Creek & Fenbrook Federal

Institutions to inform them of the process, solicit their input and to discuss any issues.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Visiting Pilots

o These were interviewed in person as they arrived at the terminal, using a survey

developed by the consultants;

Visiting Travellers

o The same survey was used here as for the pilots, the only difference being that these

visitors would have been passengers on visiting aircraft, rather than the pilots

themselves;

Economic Development and Tourism Staff

o Input from this segment was solicited using a survey designed by the consultant and

circulated to members of the relevant economic development units at the six District

Municipalities and the Tourism agency via email with responses by email and some

phone follow‐up;

Elected Officials and District Management

o One on one (generally phone) interviews were conducted with each of the Municipal

Mayors, the District Chair and a number of senior staff. There was no formal survey

questionnaire used, but the discussions were used to identify the various hot issues,

concerns, expectations, etc, with respect to the airport, including finances, governance,

services, operations, costs, etc.

GENERAL PUBLIC

A survey of the general public was conducted in August to September 2012. Members of the general public were invited to participate in an on‐line web‐based survey through notices at the airport, in local newspapers and through word of mouth. A total of 37 responses were received.

Most (80%) of respondents were from the local area

Bracebridge 32%,

Gravenhurst 16%,

Muskoka Lakes 14%,

Lake of Bays 8%,

Huntsville 5%, and

Georgian Bay 5%.

All respondents indicated they use the airport,

the large majority (60%) use the airport occasionally,

while 32% use it regularly.

Their reason for using the airport was mixed:

40% use it for leisure,

35% for business, and

25% both.

With respect to the Little Norway Memorial at the terminal:

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

66% of respondents indicated that they had visited it;

23% said they knew of the memorial but had not visited it, and

11% indicated they were not aware of the memorial.

Of the people that visited it, many thought that it was an excellent, interesting feature that makes the terminal unique. Some thought that it could be expanded and advertised more to tourists.

The respondents saw the role of the Muskoka Airport to be:

A service that is a must for the community to support economic growth and generate revenue;

A gateway to cottage country;

Municipal infrastructure which has the potential to be expanded;

A service to local pilots and encourages tourism.

70% of respondents indicated they were aware of the economic contribution the airport brings to the community and that they benefit directly from it. Reasons indicated included:

Aircraft is based at YQA;

Access to cottage country (friends, family, etc, in the area);

Purchase fuel, oil, etc and some take a taxi into town for the day;

Opens up potential for new businesses and growth of current ones;

Uses for emergencies (police, fire, medical, etc).

Three‐quarters of the respondents indicated that they think the airport is a positive economic contributor to the local economy for the following reasons:

The airport supports businesses and creates employment;

It is a critical part of Muskoka’s infrastructure to grow, and

It generates revenue.

But at the same time, some saw some negatives from the airport such as:

It did not generate enough revenue to outweigh the total costs, and

They believed it has future potential, but this is not currently being realised.

Some 70% of respondents said they would support airport expansion for the following reasons:

Expansion would attract new businesses and pilots to the area;

There is land available to easily grow airport activities;

It would generate more revenue and employment;

They see potential for commercial flights in the future;

Expansion would capitalize on aviation related businesses looking to relocate.

70% of respondents were aware of the community support services that were available through the airport, such as emergency response/medivac, etc, and they felt that these benefitted the community.

Some general comments provided by respondents at the end of the survey were as follows:

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

The airport should be run by non‐government or be private;

Some saw governance as a key issue;

More promotion should be done to make people aware of the airport;

A restaurant would be a key asset;

The airport needs an appropriate plan for the future.

It should be noted that while the survey was open to the general public, it is evident from some of the responses that these were generally provided by people using the airport or have an interest in the airport, and as such, the results tend to reflect the opinions of that group, rather than the general public.

TENANTS AND BUSINESSES

Tenants and adjacent businesses were interviewed one on one during a site visit in early August 2012 together with later phone interview. A total of 10 one on one interviews took place. In addition, information was also garnered from tenants and businesses through an online survey that they could fill in anonymously or with their contact information. There were a total of 13 online questionnaires completed. As part of this process we also held meetings with representatives of the Beaver Creek Federal Institution located immediately to the south of the airport so that they were aware of the on‐going study and so that we could raise and discuss any issues that may be of concern with respect to growth at the airport.

The tenant and business respondents indicated that they saw the strengths of the airport as:

Location;

Runway length and orientation;

Economic potential;

The fuel services offered; and

The fact that it had a runway maintained year round.

They saw the key weaknesses of the airport as being:

Development restrictions (how and what they could develop);

Lack of available land to grow;

Lack of a restaurant;

Lack of a full length taxiway;

Management and political issues at the airport; and

Lease policy and term issues.

The tenants wanted to see the following changes at the airport in terms or new facilities and services:

Credit card or keylock for self serve fuel;

Restaurant and / or a meeting area;

More organized events to draw aircraft in and promote the airport;

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Operational and management changes, including a commission instead of municipal government;

The acquisition of land to protect for future growth prospects for the airport.

Tenants were asked about their aircraft movement growth prospects over the next 10 years, under 2 scenarios: a status quo with no changes to facilities and services, and with all of the above changes implemented. The responses for the projected aircraft movement growth were as follows:

3 years 5 years 10 years

Status quo with no changes 24% 25% 26%

With all of the above changes 71% 83% 105%

When asked about the additional opportunities that the tenants felt the airport could serve, the responses were as follows:

Air shows, fly‐ins and other events;

A restaurant to attract both GA and local community;

Additional private hangar businesses;

Further development of Runway 09‐27 to attract more businesses.

Roadblocks that the tenants raised that would affect opportunities included:

High costs;

Weather and the seasons;

Airport staffing;

Political ‐ changes in council lead to repeating same issues over and over;

Lack of a vision of the future of the airport;

Lack of openness and information from management.

INCOMING PILOTS

Incoming pilots were surveyed by airport staff during August and September 2012 when their duties permitted. Responses were collected through in‐person interviews with pilots and a total of 20 were collected.

Flight characteristics obtained from the pilots surveyed were as follows:

Origin:

o 55% were from Canada;

o 45% Ontario, and

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

o 45% from the US (mainly bordering states).

Aircraft Type:

o 40% arrived using jet aircraft;

o 30% turboprops; and

o 25% pistons.

Aircraft Ownership:

o 37% rented the aircraft (e.g. ,NetJets);

o 21% were corporately owned,;

o 26% privately owned; and

o 16% aircraft owned by charter company operating the aircraft.

Duration of stay:

o 65% stayed less than 24 hours, with 20% of these staying less than 1 hour; and

o 35% stayed over a day;

o 47% indicated the aircraft will make a quick turn and depart after dropping passengers off or re‐fuelling and a short visit; while

o 53% said the aircraft would stay for the duration of the occupants visit to Muskoka.

On average, the pilots flew 10 trips/year to YQA (for a total of 203 trips over 20 respondents), but for 25% of the pilots this was their first time this year.

Trip purpose:

o Tourism was quoted by 80% of respondents with the following breakdown:

Cottage 53%,

General tourism 20%,and

Golf 7%).

The main reason pilots chose to use YQA was because of its proximity to their cottage or that of their passenger’s. Only 15% indicated that they considered other airports and chose YQA due to airport services, runway length, terminal/FBO, fuelling facilities, the location and fees.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

The incoming pilots rated the airport infrastructure and services very highly (with an average score of 4.6 out of 5). The length of runway, overall terminal and customer service received scores of 5.0, while the lowest score was for rental cars which received a score of 3.9.

Half of the pilots indicated that they felt no improvements were required to the airport. Those pilots who noted they’d like to see changes said they would like to see:

‐ more apron tie‐downs;

‐ a parallel taxiway;

‐ closer car rentals;

‐ an ILS; and

‐ a pilot rest area & showers.

No negative comments were provided, but many positive comments were provided, including that they liked the customer service (one of best in area), pilot lounge and wi‐fi.

INCOMING VISITORS

As with the survey of incoming pilots, visitors arriving by aircraft were surveyed by airport staff during August and September 2012 when their duties permitted. The survey form and process was the same as with the incoming pilots, except that in this case the passengers were interviewed, as the pilots may have been busy or the flight was a charter, in which case the pilots felt the passengers were the best to answer the questions. These results should actually be read with the incoming pilots results. There were a total of 15 interviews collected in this manner, so that with the pilot interviews, the total was 35.

Flight characteristics of the visitors were as follows:

73% were from the US;

a third of these were staying less than 1 day and a third were staying 7 days or more;

53% arrived on jet aircraft, most owned by NetJets, LJ Aviation, Shoreline or privately;

The main reason for the trip was to go to a cottage in the region / tourism;

On average these visitors flew to YQA 8 times per year (117 total trips over 15 responses), although for 25% it was their first time this year.

The main reason visitors gave for using YQA was:

proximity to their cottage (53%);

the availability of immigration & customs services (20%),;

for visiting friends or to play golf; and

it was a suitable airport for flight training.

Feedback on the airport facilities and services was all positive – almost all

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

indicate no improvements needed, except extended Customs hours. Positive comments included: nice museum, friendly service and staff and that the airport was very accommodating during their visit.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM STAFF

Economic development and tourism staff of the District of Muskoka and Towns and Townships within the district were contacted to collect information on significant economic developments in the region, how these developments could affect demand at the airport, and how the airport can be used as an economic driver for their community. A total of 6 responses were received.

Main points provided were as follows:

Tourism is very important for Muskoka and the Region is quite highly rated:

o In 2012 National Geographic voted Muskoka as one of the 10 Best Trips for Summer 2011; and

o The Muskoka Bay Club was voted the 9th best course in Canada by Score Golf Top 100 Courses in Canada in 2012’

The airport is highly important for tourism as this becomes a key access;

The economic sectors benefitting from the airport are:

o Tourism: lakeside resorts, lodges, and cottages; and golf

o Construction: the airport helps to drive demand for high end property development; and

o Aviation: aviation industries that would locate at the airport will drive jobs.

There is no key manufacturing left in the area – previously these companies were key users of charter aircraft at YQA, and it would not appear that any might return, though obviously airport related would be a key;

Major tourism developments under consideration in the area could increase demand at the airport. Some of these include:

o Possible development of 71 acres of prime waterfront known as Muskoka Regional Centre in Gravenhurst;

o Bigwin Island Development – a golf course and with residential development with ¾ of the lots still unsold;

o Patterson Key Lodge, recently renovated as potential to attract more visitors;

o But there are no significant manufacturing opportunities on the horizon.

With the closing of Buttonville Airport in Toronto, there is optimism that some of these users and their aircraft might choose to relocate to Muskoka.

ELECTED OFFICIALS

Discussions were held with 9 elected officials in the region and some key senior staff and the main points raised were as follows:

Recognition of the economic importance of airport;

Financial viability concerns as the airport is losing some$ 800k/yr;

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Funding formula vs perceived benefit and related equity issues across the municipalities;

The issue of selling vs leasing land;

Governance was a big concern;

Airport promotion seemed to be lacking;

An appropriate infrastructure plan needed to be defined;

On site restaurant should be provided.

2.8 SUMMARY OF CURRENT SITUATION

The following summarises key aspects of our review of the current situation at the airport:

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

• The current facilities at the airport are generally in fairly good condition, with many of these

having been recently upgraded;

• The length of the runway, its width and the associated services provided, including fuel

(branded), Customs clearance, and full service place the airport on par or better than many of its

competitors;

• Key deficiencies or items requiring addressing, include:

• The main runway is in need of a major overlay/rehab to repair the pavements (planned for 2014/15);

• The main aircraft apron is approaching capacity during busy summer peaks; • Runway capacity is an issue during busy summer weekends, with lack of a parallel

taxiway considered as one of the key constraints to this runway capacity (more discussion later in future options);

• The grass runway is a key asset that should be maintained in order to provide improved accessibility/availability for the airport (more discussion later in future options);

• The airport has run out of developed land to service and support its operations (options are developed later in development discussion).

EXISTING TRAFFIC

• Traffic at the airport has fluctuated widely in last 10+ years: • Traffic peaked in the late 1990s and is still below this level today.

• Base line trends suggest traffic may just barely return to the previous peak within next 20 years: • But the make‐up of today’s traffic is much different than past traffic and this make‐up

will continue to evolve: o With fewer small piston aircraft, o More turbo‐props and jets , and probably steady local operations.

• In comparison to other Ontario municipal airports:

• The airport compares favourably to others, generally performing better in some areas

such as proportion of itinerants, steady local, increasing turbo‐props and jets .

• In comparison to other North American (NA) GA airports:

• Traffic make‐up and growth generally is consistent with other similar NA airports.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

FINANCIAL

• The airport has consistently run an operating deficit, with this deficit at over $ 300k in 2009, but

dropping gradually to under $ 300k by 2011;

• This is consistent with most Municipal airports in Ontario, where the average deficit is estimated

at about $ 143k per year (though much of this difference could be due to accounting

differences);

• Contributions to the capital reserve fund of some $ 500k per year increase the total funding

deficit to close to $ 800k per year;

• The airport has access to a number of federal capital assistance programs, but is restricted from

participating in some, and is generally not eligible for any provincial assistance programs.

OTHER COMPETING AIRPORTS

• Other competing airports in the area have been very aggressive with expansion plans to cater to

growth in traffic;

• These airports have been able to generally get 2/3 funding from a mix of federal and provincial

programs to fund these expansions;

• These other airports are generally governed by a mix of airport commission, private

operator/airport authority, or municipal services corporation;

• All of these airports have more developed land available than Muskoka;

• These other communities also generally have a better industrial and employment base on which

to build traffic;

• However, Muskoka compares favourably with these airports in terms of facilities, mix of traffic and based businesses and tenants.

STAKEHOLDERS

• Users and stakeholders at the airport are generally satisfied with the airport and the services

provided, with some key differences among them;

• The general public is reasonably knowledgeable about activities at the airport and they

generally support the airport and possible expansions;

• In‐coming pilots and visitors rate the airport quite high in terms of facilities and services

offered;

• Tenants and businesses located at the airport are reasonably happy with the facilities

and services provided, however they have a number of issues related to:

o Governance;

o Leases , and

o Development plans;

• Elected officials are generally concerned about the airport’s:

o Financial viability;

o An equitable funding formula, and

o Governance.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

SUMMARY

So in summary, we believe that:

The airport has reasonable facilities for its current requirements;

These facilities put the airport in a good position to compete with other airports in the area;

But it needs additional developed lands to meet forecast requirements;

The existing tenant and business base at the airport provides a strong base from which to grow;

The existing traffic mix at the airport is strong and trending in a positive direction;

The airport financial situation is consistent with other Municipal airports, and this is improving,

though

The airport is challenged in terms of programs for capital assistance;

Most users are generally happy with the airport’s facilities and services; though

There are a number of issues to deal with from the tenant’s and businesses at the airport.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

3.0 OPPORTUNITIES, FORECASTS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 AIRPORT VISION AND OBJECTIVES

It is important to understand the long term vision established for the airport by the District Council as this vision is what is intended to shape any activities at the airport, as well as to direct any key decision making, whether it be related to future development, current operations, negotiations for new tenants, etc.

From the 2006 Business Plan the stated vision for the airport was as follows:

“Continue to be a commercial airport which promotes and supports the social and economic needs of the District of Muskoka”.

In 2008, in the District’s Strategic Priorities, Goal 3 was stated as follows:

“Develop the Muskoka Airport as an economic development tool that supports the social and business needs of Muskoka”.

In the 2012 Strategic Priorities, the District again reinforced the following vision as part of Goal 3:

“…..develop the Muskoka Airport as an economic development tool that supports the social and business needs of Muskoka”.

It is clear from the above that the District has established a very clear vision for the airport that states that the airport is to be developed as an economic development tool to support the social and business needs of the District of Muskoka.

From this statement and others, it is also clear that the District views the Airport as an important contributor to the business and social fabric of the community and that it is a part of a greater focus on tourism and business and is an important element of the overall transportation system in the District.

This vision is consistent with that established by many municipal governments for their airports, with the realisation that airports are an important contributor to the social and economic well being of any region.

3.2 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES

In any business there are always future opportunities for expansion or to grow the business whether they are only limited, as in the case of sunset industries, or very significant, as in the case of new innovative industries, such as high tech and the internet. The challenge in any industry, and especially airports, is to identify the specific opportunities that exist in that industry and within the specific local and region context that the airport or industry operate.

For the Muskoka Airport, we have tried to identify future opportunities through a number of approaches as follows:

We used an investment attraction model developed in consultation with FedNor, for use by airports and communities. This model includes a two‐step process that first evaluates the community’s strengths in the aerospace sector; and then assesses a community’s readiness to attract new investment.

o The District’s aerospace strengths or assets were broken into four main categories (aerospace product and services; airport infrastructure; aerospace training and

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

education supply; and location / access); each with its own set of criterion. While each criterion within the main categories is scored equally on a scale of 0‐5, the number of criterion in each main category determines the importance of the category in the overall score. Airport infrastructure represents 41% of the total. For this step of the assessment, Muskoka Airport was compared to Parry Sound, Peterborough, Lake Simcoe, Oshawa, Kingston, Niagara District, and Haliburton/Stanhope. Muskoka ranked 5th out of 8 as shown in the summary table below. Details are found in Appendix E.

Table 3‐1: Aerospace Strength Comparison

o The investment readiness component of the model uses the criteria/investment factors found in Ontario’s Local Economies in Transition Initiative (LETI) combined with a series of aerospace and aviation opportunities. As shown in the summary table below, the top five opportunities for Muskoka are: Hangars, FBO, MRO services, Flight Training, and Aircraft Sales. Details are found in Appendix E.

Table 3‐2: Investment Readiness Analysis

We assessed investments, expansions and related activities at competing airports in the broader region to see what they were undertaking, such as:

o Peterborough has extended their runway to attract larger corporate jets to meet the demands of their corporate and industrial businesses, and they are also planning to pave their crosswind runway to attract Seneca College flight training;

MUSKOKAPARRY SOUND

PETERBOROUGHLAKE SIMCOE

(BARRIE)OSHAWA KINGSTON

NIAGARA DISTRICT

HALIBURTON / STANHOPE

AEROSPACE PRODUCTS & SERVICES

15 12 18 13 17 11 9 4

AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

25 19 27 25 22 25 22 11

AEROSPACE / AVIATION TRAINING & EDUCATION

3 4 5 6 6 4 4 3

LOCATION / ACCESS 3 3 4 5 6 7 5 4

score 46 38 54 49 51 47 40 22rank 5 7 1 3 2 4 6 8

INVESTMENT FACTORS(from Ontario's Local Economies in Tarnsition

Initiative (LETI)WEIGHT

12121212121212121212

120rank

2.7 12.0

Air

craf

t M

anu

fact

uri

ng

&/o

r A

ssem

bly

Exp

and

ed P

ost

Sec

on

day

S

pec

ialt

y / T

ech

nic

al

Bas

e fo

r P

ub

lic S

ervi

ces

(med

evac

, fire

fight

ing,

M

RO

Ser

vice

s (in

cl. a

/c c

onve

rsio

ns,

Flig

ht

Tra

inin

g

8.7 1.8 7.2 1.1 8.4 11.16.7 7.1 9.0 10.7 10.8 3.9

Aer

on

auti

cal R

ecre

atio

nal

Han

gar

s (p

rivat

e / c

orpo

rate

)

[OT

HE

R]

Mai

nte

nan

ce B

ase

for

Sch

edu

led

Car

rier

sA

viat

ion

Eq

uip

men

t M

anu

fact

uri

ng

Co

ld W

eath

er T

esti

ng

Air

Car

go

Bas

e / L

og

isti

cs

Cen

tre

Tes

t F

ligh

ts

Air

craf

t S

ales

LABOUR FORCELOCAL INDUSTRY 8.0 4.8 10.2 6.0 6.0 4.8 1.8

FB

O

(incl

. avi

atio

n fu

el)

Aer

on

auti

cal R

&D

Aer

osp

ace

Su

pp

ly C

hai

n

En

try

6.6 4.5

TRANSPORTATION / DISTRIBUTION 10.5 12.0 12.0 8.4 12.0 8.4 2.2 8.010.8 11.4 2.6 5.4 8.0 9.48.0 4.4 9.8

12.0 12.0TAXES 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0

11.6 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 10.412.0 12.0 12.0 12.012.0 12.0

UTILITIES 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 12.0 12.0

LOCAL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT 9.9 10.5 10.4 10.8 10.5 10.8 10.8 9.912.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0

11.3 10.1PROPERTY AVAILABILITY AND COST 9.6 9.7 7.3 8.1 7.3 8.1

10.8 10.8 9.8 9.0 10.1 10.19.4 9.4 12.0 7.512.0 7.5

12.0INCENTIVES / BUSINESS SUPPORT PROGRAMS 9.6 9.6

9.4 9.6 11.0 8.5

12.0EDUCATION & TRAINING 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 7.8 10.0 10.0 8.4

9.6 9.6 9.6 7.3 12.09.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.67.5

12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0QUALITY OF LIFE 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.07.8 8.0 11.6 11.0 9.0 10.0

12.0 12.0 12.0 12.012.091.2 96.4 89.3 98.8 87.9 110.288.7 97.7 94.9 99.6 102.0

15 2 3 10 16 8 1 17107.6 95.3 85.8 96.8 111.0 0.0

14 7 11 5 4 12 9 13 6

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

o Lake Simcoe has been investing heavily in additional land to satisfy anticipated aviation related industries locating there and is also planning to extend their runway to be able to accommodate larger aircraft; and

o Parry Sound has been developing large areas of additional land to accommodate more aircraft hangars and as well they hope to accommodate a range of aviation related industries.

We considered general trends in the broader aviation industry and more specifically in the general aviation component;

o Here we know that with the baby boom generation retiring, there will be lots of shortages for jobs like pilots, mechanics, sales, management, etc.;

o Decline in private and small piston aircraft usage and increase in corporate, share ownership and charter turboprop and jet aircraft usage.

We held discussions with key airport stakeholders. Opportunities arising from these discussions indicated:

o There is a keen interest to expand the existing maintenance, repair and overhaul activities at the airport, mainly on the painting related side, but in other related areas as well;

o There is a lot of demand for additional hangars and T‐hangars to store private aircraft;

o There are additional opportunities for flight training activities.

We reviewed activities and trends at Southern Ontario Airports in general to identify that:

o The closing of Buttonville Airport will provide opportunities for Muskoka to provide land for hangars for private and possibly some corporate aircraft;

o Capacity constraints at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, will force some private and corporate customers to relocate their aircraft and associated hangars;

o Policies at Toronto Pearson favouring big commercial traffic will lead to continued relocation of corporate and other traffic to outlying airports;

o Some airports in the region have been expanding and actively pursuing the displaced traffic (e.g., Peterborough and Lake Simcoe), while other airports are not (e.g., Oshawa).

A summary of our findings for this opportunities analysis is summarized in the discussion below.

ENHANCED MAINTENANCE REPAIR AND OVERHAUL (MRO)

Our experience at airports is that the greatest opportunities for expansion at an airport are typically from entrepreneurs who currently live with the community and are based at the airport. Some great examples of this can be found in:

Kelowna with Kelowna Flightcraft (one of the largest large aircraft operators in Canada outside the major carriers and a large MRO);

Abbotsford with Cascade Aerospace, another large MRO operation, and specialist in fire fighting aircraft;

IMP (Halifax), among others; and

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing (MAR) and Lake Central Air Services (LCAS) are good Muskoka examples.

These businesses resulted from local entrepreneurs who lived in the community having an idea to invest in a particular opportunity. They lived within that community and wanted to live and invest there. Looking at these businesses, there is no over‐riding reason for these activities being located where they are other than the fact the owner for family and life style reasons wanted to stay in the community.

At Muskoka, there is significant opportunity to work with MAR and LCAS to expand their MRO services and facilities as there is a great interest on the part of these companies to expand at the Muskoka Airport. But in addition, other local businesses such as Grassroots Aviation and Freedon Flite might also be interested in expanded opportunities, especially if their larger counterparts succeed and provide opportunities for synergistic investments. Known demand from MAR and LCAS is for probably in the range of about 5 acres +/‐ adjacent to their existing facilities.

These known developments from MAR and LCAS would lead to:

Retention of existing anchor tenants who could otherwise move elsewhere if they cannot expand at Muskoka Airport;

Additional land development, and therefore additional land rents or land sales;

Incremental fuel sales and associated revenues, as well as additional landing fee revenues and possibly parking revenues; and

More jobs at the airport and within the community and the associated economic spin‐offs from these jobs.

HANGAR DEVELOPMENTS

Based on our discussions with current stakeholders and potential investors, as well as our assessment of the implications of Buttonville, Toronto City Centre and Toronto Pearson airports, we feel that there is significant potential for new hangar developments at the airport. Many of these could be for small private aircraft, such as float planes currently located along the many lakes in the area, or relocations from the noted airports above; to larger aircraft that might relocate from Greater Toronto Area (GTA) airports. We also have identified that there are investors and stakeholders out there who would be willing to put their money down to build and operate some of these facilities

These investments would lead to:


Incremental fuel sales and associated revenues, as well as additional landing fee revenues (although most based aircraft are exempt from paying landing fees), and AMC revenues;

Incremental taxes;

Increased tourism in the area and the subsequent economic spin offs; and

These new users would also most likely seek support and maintenance from some of the existing tenants so there would be synergistic effects.

There is, however, competition from other airports and to capture these opportunities, the District would need to develop sufficient lands to handle these additional users. In addition, the District would need to advertise and market these lands and then be very proactive and aggressive in wooing these new potential tenants.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

EXPANDED FLIGHT TRAINING

There is currently one flight training school located at the airport. In addition to this, there are other schools that come up and carry out flight training activities here like the Brampton Flying Club, Seneca College, the Waterloo‐Wellington Flying Club, among others.

Visitors to Muskoka are generally affluent and are a good market for flight training. In addition, there are forecasts for large looming shortages of pilots both in Canada and internationally. Flight schools at some airports, like Seneca College at Buttonville (relocating to Peterborough) and possibly others, need to relocate or in some cases may wish to relocate with increasing traffic at their current home airports. Muskoka with its relatively uncongested airspace could easily attract additional flight training, especially based flight training. But it would require a paved second runway to attract such additional training, as a minimum, and appropriate buildings and associated apron space.

The benefits of additional flight training activities would be:


Incremental fuel sales and associated revenues;

Increased awareness of tourism in the area and the subsequent economic spin offs; and

These new users would most likely seek support and maintenance from some of the existing tenants so there would be synergistic effects.

AIRCRAFT SALES

There are a number of local businesses established on the airport that currently conduct aircraft sales related activities, such as Grass Roots Aviation, Aztec/Nomad and Freedom Flite (ultra lights). There may be some opportunities to attract additional businesses like these if enough land were available. However, aircraft sales operations are usually tied to the airport closest to the manufacturing site. There are existing and well‐established sales and distribution networks; therefore this is considered only a small opportunity. The benefits would be similar to the ones noted above for the other uses, but on a much smaller scale due to the lower intensity of these activities.

EXPANDED FBO ACTIVITIES

The airport is currently operating a full service Fixed Based Operator (FBO) services at the airport with the provision of fuelling, catering, aircraft handling, and cleaning services. From the pilot and user interviews, it is quite evident that the airport is doing a great job in this area and has an excellent reputation for its services. There is an opportunity to better promote and market the services, which may attract additional traffic and consequently increased revenues from fuel sales, landing fees, catering, etc.

There is one service that a typical FBO also provides that is currently not being provided: hangar space to store aircraft. There is also potential to provide such space and associated services. But then, this service may best be provided by working closely with the private sector to provide the hangars themselves, in concert with the hangar spaces noted above in the second item in this discussion.

While there is potential as noted, the seasonality of the market in Muskoka is a real challenge to establishing a full FBO type facility as seen at many other airports. Continuing to market and expand the current airport run approach would appear to be the best way to continue to exploit this opportunity.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

ORGANIZED PROMOTIONAL EVENTS

The importance of airport and community promotion and the contributions to the local economy cannot be over stressed. Many communities sponsor air shows and fly‐ins, etc, to promote not only their airport and associated facilities, but the community itself. Such events can be expensive to put on, but there are lots of volunteers out there to help with such activities, including the fund raising associated with putting on such events. This minimizes the net investment required for these promotional events.

These activities can contribute to the bottom line of the airport by increasing landing fees, fuel sales, parking fees, etc, especially over the longer term, due to the awareness that they bring. These events themselves can also contribute direct economic spin offs to the communities involved. An airport like Muskoka needs to do everything it can to try to attract every last landing fee, fuel sale, etc. to try maximize revenues and to help make ends meet, as the marginal cost of attracting much of this additional revenue is typically less than the incremental revenue. Such promotional events should be used to spur traffic in off peak periods, if possible, but in any case, the events should be off peak so as to not interfere with peak traffic.

The airport has done a commendable job in the past with hosting a variety of events. Recent examples include:

Grand Opening of Little Norway Memorial (2007)

G8 Summit (2010)

Touch‐A‐Truck (2010/2011/2012)

Dockside Festival (2004)

Cadet Ceremonies & Exercises (2010/2011/2012/2013)

School Tours (Public Schools & College Programs) (several annually)

Youth Groups Tours (Girl Guides, Scouts, etc.) (several annually)

Onsite Club Tours (Probus clubs, Rotary clubs, etc.)

Offsite Club Presentations (Probus clubs, Rotary clubs, Church groups, etc.)

OPP and Military Training Exercises (several annually)

Norwegian Memorial Plaque unveiling (2012)

Interprovincial Air Tour (2012).

In order to capitalize on the opportunities and benefits associated events, the airport should continue to work closely with community groups and associations like COPA, Muskoka Tourism, Chambers of Commerce, and set up and continue to support appropriate committees of volunteers to both fund raise for and to organize the various events.

INCREASED TOURISM

The prime industry in Muskoka is tourism. As such, the District is committed to increasing tourism in the region through a variety of promotional efforts. While many of the tourists may arrive by land based means, such as cars and buses, there will be an important portion that will choose to arrive by air, such as the more affluent segment and those travelling long distances, particularly from the US. This increased tourism will not only benefit the District, but will have positive implications for the airport in terms of additional aircraft movements which will result in increased revenues for landing fees, fuel sales, parking fees, etc.

To capitalize on this opportunity the airport would have to work cooperatively with Muskoka Tourism, Chambers of Commerce, etc to market and advertise the airport.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

SELF SERVE AVGAS

Many airports that we have worked with have self serve (card lock) AvGas facilities. The advantages of such facilities are that they can provide service 24 hours per day (could be a guaranteed fuel stop), even when there are no staff on site, while during peaks they could reduce staff requirements, and the fuel could be offered at a lower price than a full service operation would charge (like at many car gas stations). We understand that the current contract with Imperial Oil does not permit self service, but it is an opportunity to consider for the longer term when the current contract expires, as this could lead to lower costs (freeing up staff) as well as increased sales. Our discussions with local users and pilots indicated a very strong desire for such an opportunity.

OTHER OPPORTUNITIES

As part of our assessment, we looked at other opportunities that were deemed to probably not be feasible over the short term. These were as follows:

• Scheduled airline service – The airport is too close to Toronto to warrant airline service by majors like Jazz or Porter, etc. Compounding this, the market size is much too small and the directionality (low loads in off‐peak direction) and seasonality (summer only) are also concerns. In all likelihood, there may eventually be some demand to warrant such services, but probably with smaller aircraft (in the 15‐20 seat range) and probably not within the next 10 years. Service by larger aircraft, such as Porter Airlines’ 70 seat Q400s, would probably be in the very distant future unless there were some very large tourist related developments in the area.

• Base for aircraft manufacturing &/or assembly – Typically such activity would require a higher population base (year‐round) than available at Muskoka and the availability of skilled labour. This would be true for larger manufacturing/assembly operations, however smaller operations such as the activities currently being undertaken by Grass Roots and Aztec/Nomad10 may be viable.

• Post‐Secondary Aviation / Aerospace Training (incl. MRO, engineering, airport management) – We feel that based on our experience at other airports and during other work, that this area is already generally well served in Ontario. However, this does not necessarily rule out all activities in this sector. For instance, MAR’s proposal for an aircraft painting course at its proposed facilities tends to be unique and seems to be a good niche to explore.

• Expanded base for public services – The airport is already home to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Northern Air Solutions (which operates some EMS services on behalf of ORNGE), so there would appear to be little opportunity to attract other public services.

• Maintenance base for scheduled carriers – Similar to the manufacturing point above, the low year‐round population and access to pools of skilled labour works against the Muskoka area. However, the proposed MAR investment at the airport is a niche and is NOT the kind of maintenance requiring larger pools of skilled workers. This is a matter of scale.

10 Found Aircraft Canada, a manufacturer of small bush planes looked at Muskoka before settling on Parry Sound for its operations. Their decision to locate elsewhere was primarily motivated by the availability of NOHFC funding, which wasn’t available to Muskoka.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

• On‐site restaurant / café – The visitor surveys and discussions with some stakeholders/tenants clearly indicated that there is a desire to have an on‐site restaurant/café. Other airports like Parry Sound have a full service restaurant. However, in our assessment, we feel that the existing restaurant down the road (along the highway) may serve needs adequately or at least this works against the provision of an on‐site facility. More discussion is provided on this item later in the report.

To summarize, the following are a number of key findings from the above discussion:

• There are a lot of potential opportunities for the Muskoka Airport to pursue in order to expand operations and investment at the airport;

• A lot of the potential development and whether or not it is realized depends on local entrepreneurs and whether or not they “step up to the plate” and are then supported;

• An important key to airport expansion is building on activities and uses you already have. This brings you better returns, and is easier than attracting new users, activities, etc.;

• The types of opportunities available need to be qualified in terms of the potential scale of activity, with the obvious potential generally being for a “smaller scale” rather than one you might find at other larger airports, due primarily to the low population base and consequent small pool of skilled workers; and

• To capitalise on opportunities the airport must first have the appropriate facilities in place, or at least a plan to develop these facilities and then it must aggressively market itself and pursue the potential opportunities.

3.3 FORECAST AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY

FORECAST TRAFFIC UNDER STATUS QUO SCENARIO

TRAFFIC AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

Aviation traffic is generally related to economic conditions with activity increasing when economic conditions improve and it decreases during economic downturns. This relationship was examined by comparing itinerant and local aircraft movements at YQA with Ontario and Canadian GDP over the 16 years, 1997 to 2012 – see Figure 3‐1. The relationship with Ontario and Canadian GDP was found to be very weak. Movements declined in 2002‐2004 while economic growth was strong and there was no decline in movements in 2009 during “the great recession”. The correlation between GDP and movements was negative for itinerant movements, which makes no sense, and was only 0.1 for local movements. The results were almost the same for both Ontario and Canadian GDP. Clearly, the dependence of traffic at YQA on the overall economy is weak and is overwhelmed by dependence on local factors.

FORECAST MOVEMENTS – BASE CASE

The expected numbers of movements at YQA were estimated under a Status Quo scenario for the airport where there are no changes in runway layout, minimal changes in land available at the airport for commercial development and no major tenants leave the airport, or new ones are attracted to the airport. The forecasts assume general trends continue with:

GDP increasing from 1.9% in 2012 to 2.5% in 2014, then declining gradually to 1.9% in 2032, and

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Very slow growth in total movements, with piston declining and turboprop and jet movements increasing

Figure 3‐1: Comparison of Aircraft Movements at YQA and Economic Growth

Figure 3‐2: Actual and Forecast Movements at YQG, 1997 to 2032, Under Status Quo Scenario

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

GDP In

dex (100 in

1997)

Movements

Itinerant Local Ontario GDP Index Canada GDP Index

Source: Statistics Canada

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32Year

Local Helicopters Piston engines Turbo‐propellers Jet engines

Local

Helicopter

Piston

Turboprop

Jet

Actual Forecast

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Under this scenario, jet aircraft movements increase at an average rate of 4.0% per year, helicopters at 3.2% per year, and turboprop aircraft at 2.8% per year. Movements of piston aircraft are forecast to decline by 1.8% per year, while local movements increase very slowly at 0.5% per year. Overall, both itinerant and total movements increase by 0.4% per year.

The current and forecast numbers of movements by aircraft segment are presented in Table 3‐3.

Table 3‐3: Forecast Movements by Aircraft Segment under the Status Quo ‐ Base Case Scenario

Status Quo – Base Case Annual Movements

Current Forecast

Segment 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032

Jet engines 683 850 1,033 1,241 1,472 Turbo‐propellers 2,772 3,221 3,670 4,118 4,567 Piston engines 7,861 7,217 6,626 6,083 5,584 Helicopters 934 1,120 1,313 1,516 1,727 Local 4,197 4,334 4,471 4,607 4,744 Total 16,447 16,742 17,112 17,565 18,095

FORECAST TRAFFIC UNDER MEDIUM AND HIGH SCENARIOS

Opportunities identified in the previous sections were used to create Medium and High Case development scenarios for use in preparing forecasts of potential traffic at the airport. In each case assumptions were made about the capture rate of the various identified opportunities.

For both the Medium and High Case scenarios, it is assumed that the following types of opportunities are realized:

MAR development goes ahead

This spawns additional support developments

T hangar and private hangar developments are initiated

For the Medium Case, it is assumed that

The take‐up of commercial lands on the airport increases from 22 to 37 acres over the next 20 years. This corresponds to development which is 25% slower over the next 20 years than during the past 20 years.

Flight training activity stays at current levels.

Activity levels are assumed to increase consistent with the new level and type of business activity at the airport.

For the High Case scenario, similar assumptions were made to the Medium Case, except that:

Land take up is about 25% higher over next 20 years as compared to that over the last 20 years (increasing from 22 to 47 acres), with a similar mix of activities to that of the Medium Case

Average Annual Growth 2012‐2032

Jet engines 4.0%

Turbo‐propellers 2.8%

Piston engines ‐1.8%

Helicopters 3.2%

Itinerant 0.4%

Local 0.5%

Total 0.4%

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Flight training is assumed to return to historic highs reached in the late 1990s.

The implications of these levels of development on air traffic at YQA are shown in the figures below.

For itinerant movements:

The Base Case forecast has these growing from 12,250 to 13,350 movements in 20 years

The Medium Case forecast projects these to grow from 12,250 to almost 14,600 in this same period, while

The High Case suggests itinerant operations could approach 16,000 in 20 years

Figure 3‐3: Forecast Movements by Scenario

With respect to Total Movements:

The Base Case forecast grows these from some 16,450 to about 18,100 in 20 years

The Medium Case forecast has these growing from 16,450 to over 19,000 in this same period, while

The High Case suggests total operations could approach 22,000 in 20 years

A more detailed breakdown of the forecast traffic by engine category is provided in Figure 3‐4 and Table 3‐4 below. In summary, we forecast that:

Jet traffic will continue to grow at a higher rate than total traffic and account for a higher proportion of total traffic under all scenarios than today

Turbo‐prop traffic will experience a similar trend, while

Piston‐engine traffic will decline under all scenarios, but moving from the base case to the medium to the high case, this segment of traffic would consistently account for higher piston volumes (but again less than today, even in the high case)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

2012 2017 2022 2027 2032

Total Movements

Base Case Medium High

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2012 2017 2022 2027 2032

Itinerant MovementsBase Case Medium High

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Local movements would grow from today’s levels, but only marginally in the base and medium cases, with much higher activity in the high scenario.

While these traffic forecasts still do not represent significant growth, even in the high case at just 30% more traffic than today’s levels, the segments that have significant revenue opportunities are in fact growing the fastest and will impact the revenue side much faster and better than the cost side (to be illustrated later).

Figure 3‐4: Forecast Movements by Engine Type

Table 3‐4: Forecast Movements by Engine Type

Year 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2017 2022 2027 2032

Redevelopment Scenarios Medium Case High Case

Jet engines 683 849 1,026 1,237 1,398 888 1,121 1,335 1,561 Turbo-propellers 2,772 3,189 3,689 4,330 4,796 3,309 3,917 4,509 5,172 Piston engines 7,861 7,436 7,148 7,106 6,675 7,703 7,587 7,431 7,372 Helicopters 934 1,077 1,259 1,491 1,708 1,100 1,297 1,514 1,770 Local 4,197 4,697 4,724 4,780 4,780 5,900 5,946 5,983 6,029 Total 16,447 17,247 17,847 18,944 19,358 18,899 19,868 20,772 21,904

3.4 FORECAST FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

Airport facility requirements are driven by a number of factors, including the need to:

Handle current traffic levels at the airport in a safe, reliable and consistent manner, under a variety of weather and wind conditions,

Provide various facilities for differing users such as aircraft, passengers, cargo, etc,

Accommodate these various uses through the provision of an adequate land base, surface access and appropriate utilities and services, such as power, water, sewer, etc, and

Expand to handle increased traffic levels at the airport.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Jet engines Turbo‐propellers Piston engines Helicopters Local

Movements by Category2012 2022 Base Case 2022 Medium Case 2022 Hign Case

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

The following discussion presents our forecasts for additional or expanded facilities at the airport to handle both existing traffic levels in a better way and to also meet the requirements of the projected growth forecast for the airport. The topic is dealt with further in sections 4.2 through 4.4 where how to, when to and at what cost to provide the additional facilities is dealt with.

AIRFIELD

RUNWAYS

A sufficient number and adequate lengths of runways at an airport are key to an airport’s success. Without these, the airport may not attract or be able to handle the traffic that may wish to use the airport. The “capacity” of this runway system then also affects the level and number of other facilities that will need to be provided.

First let’s look at the number of runways required for the Muskoka airport.

The airport currently has the main runway (18‐36) which is a 6,000 ft long x 150 ft wide paved runway oriented in a north/south direction. The airport also has a secondary grass/dirt runway (09‐27) oriented east/west and located in the south portion of the airport lands.

Transport Canada recommends that runways should provide at least 95% usability for the aircraft that the airport is designed to serve. Rather than get into a detailed technical analysis here, we have provided a lot of detail on the wind analysis and requirements in Appendix K.

From the analysis, we have concluded that it is desirable to have a second runway at the airport in order to provide increased usability and coverage over a broad spectrum of wind conditions. We have also shown that this second runway can be oriented anywhere from 09‐27 to 12‐30 and provide the same incremental increase over the usability provided by the main runway alone.

Now, what about the length of these runways?

The conventional approach to runway length design is to define the “critical” aircraft and then determine its runway length requirement. Our preferred approach is to study a whole variety of aircraft as our experience is that there is never really just one “critical” aircraft, especially at a general aviation airport like Muskoka.

Figure 3‐5 compares the runway length requirements of the different aircraft using Muskoka airport and the frequency of the associated aircraft movements that these particular aircraft represent. This information is built up from our extensive data base of other studies that we have carried out on runway length requirements for a wide variety of aircraft at a wide variety of airports. The data in the graph matches up the runway length requirements with the actual movements of the aircraft types using the Muskoka Airport. A detailed table with all of the aircraft, their runway length requirements, and the frequency of use at Muskoka is provided in Appendix G.

This graph shows that there are quite a number of aircraft (close to 1,000 per year) currently using the airport that require more than the 6,000 ft now available, if they were to operate at their maximum capabilities. However, many of these aircraft, whether they are the Netjets bizjets, private jets, or even the larger Air Canada jets (like the A320s) coming in for painting at MAR, are flying from generally close by destinations (like nearby US states or Montreal/Toronto) so that their fuel requirements and hence weights are reduced, so that they can operate on a shorter runway.

On the basis of this analysis, we recommend that the length of runway 18‐36 should be considered sufficient to satisfy the current and probably forecast requirements as the main runway. We feel that shortening the runway would not appear to make any sense as it could potentially exclude some very lucrative traffic to the airport. On the other hand, extending the runway could make sense in that it

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

could attract aircraft from further afield than just the nearby US states or provinces. This is what other airports like Peterborough are counting on. However, given the financial implications of such an extension and the potentially limited returns, we do not feel that such an extension would be worthwhile.

Now what about the length of the crosswind runway? The crosswind runway should be designed for aircraft that cannot use the main runway during periods of higher winds that would limit them to use the crosswind runway. As noted above in the wind analysis, the main runway has close to 99% usability for aircraft that can accept a crosswind component of over 13 knots. So these aircraft can use the main runway under virtually any conditions. However, the smaller aircraft that can only contend with 10 kt crosswinds only have about 95% usability on this runway, or less, depending on gusts.

Figure 3‐5: Runway Length Requirements vs Aircraft Movements

In looking more closely at Figure 3‐5 and studying the detailed list of aircraft using the Muskoka airport and their runway length requirements (see Appendix G), we feel that the required length for the crosswind runway would be about 2,800 ft. From Figure 3‐5 we see that a 3,000 ft runway would accommodate about 80% of the aircraft operations at the Muskoka Airport. We have chosen about 2,800 ft as the preferred length as looking more closely at the table in Appendix G there are no aircraft requiring lengths of between 2,800 ft and 3,000 ft and in fact, there are virtually no aircraft needing lengths of between 2,800 ft and 3,400 ft (as confirmed by the very short bar for 3,000 ft to 3,500 ft in Figure 3‐8). A 2,800 ft runway, in accommodating about 80% of runway movements would in fact accommodate nearly 100% of the aircraft which would have a 10 knot crosswind component at their design crosswind limit.

As noted in earlier sections, the current crosswind runway 09‐27 is 2,200 ft and some previous reports such as the PSMI report considered a 2,000 ft length as an option for a relocated crosswind. This option is looked at again in the next section on development. Looking closely at the data in Figure 3‐5, we see that a 2,000 to 2,200 ft length would be capable of accommodating about 60% of total runway

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Required Runway Length (ft)

Annual Movements Cummulative % of Total Mov.

Source: Statistic Canada, Aircraft manufacturer web sites

Current Runway Length

Weight restricted Movements

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

movements. If we were to look more closely at the make‐up of these aircraft 9data in Appendix G), we would see that this would account for probably some 80% of the aircraft that would be limited to the 10 knot crosswind criteria for design purposes.

So to summarize our recommendations with respect to runway requirements, we recommend the following:

The existing main runway should be maintained at its current length of 6,000 ft

The width of this main runway should be left at its current width of 150 ft, based on the types of aircraft that are intended to use the airport.

A crosswind runway with an initial length of about 2,000+/‐ ft should be provided. This runway should be protected for an eventual length of about 2,800 ft to maximize usability of the airport’s runway system.

This crosswind runway need only be 75 ft wide to accommodate the types of aircraft that could use it11.

TAXIWAYS

The current taxiway system serving the airport is quite limited, comprising a partial parallel taxiway to the main runway at its north end and 2 associated connecting taxiways, as well as a taxiway accessing the main aircraft apron and associated development at the south end.

Based on our experience, the capacity of this current runway and taxiway system is about 25 movements per hour during busy periods. As noted in the air traffic section earlier in this report, the current peak hour for operations is estimated at about 28 movements per hour and this typically occurs on busy summer weekends. The fact that the current system is virtually at capacity is manifesting itself with complaints from local pilots as well as the fact that there are a lot of missed approaches at the Airport (though some of these are conducted as a matter of training).

The capacity of the current runway/taxiway system at the airport could be increased by extending the current partial parallel taxiway to the main runway along its full length. Currently during north flow conditions, landing aircraft destined to the main apron must turn around and then taxi on the runway to get to the apron. As well, aircraft located along the developed lands to the north must also taxi along the runway for a good portion to reach the south threshold to depart. During south flow conditions, we have a similar but reverse situation where aircraft departing from the main apron must taxi along the runway to get to the north threshold while aircraft destined for the north lands must taxi on the runway after landing. Extending the taxiway the full length of the runway would allow taxiing aircraft to stay on the taxiway system and avoid taxiing on the runway. This would increase the runway capacity to about 45‐50 movements per hour from the current 28 or so.

This parallel taxiway, as a minimum, could be extended along the full length of the runway and be designed to only accommodate the smaller aircraft (Code B), as is the case currently with the partial parallel to the north. Alternatively, it could be designed to handle the full range of aircraft serving the airport (Code C).

The timing of the need for such a full parallel is affected by a number of factors. The first would be the increase in the peak hour traffic. Given that the annual traffic is forecast to grow from some 16,000

11 It may be prudent to protect for a widening to 100 ft in the future should it become necessary.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

annual movements today to some 19,000 over 20 years (in the medium growth case), the expectation would be that the peak hour volume would grow proportionately to about 33 peak hour movements. With the current volume putting the system at capacity, any increase in volume would exacerbate the current situation. However, given the very peaky nature of traffic, the airport should try to manage the peaks and attempt to spread them out more. This will tend to happen naturally if no additional capacity is provided. An important question would be how long could the capacity situation be tolerated and how would users react. Given the limited projected growth in traffic from maybe 28 movements per hour to only about 33 per hour within 20 years, we would suggest that consideration be given to trying to defer the need for a parallel taxiway for at least 10 years.

A second factor that would affect the need for a full parallel taxiway could be the provision of a fully paved crosswind runway. As will be discussed later in the development plan section, provision of a new runway in a 12‐30 orientation could off load the demand on the main runway during the key summer peaks to the point that aircraft could easily taxi along the main runway without causing (severe) delays either along the runway or along the partial parallel taxiway adjacent to it.

Additional taxiways would be required to serve the various new land developments. These new taxiways are discussed along with the land development plan in a later section of this report.

AIRCRAFT APRON

The existing aircraft apron gets very busy during summer weekends to the point that it is “bursting at the seams”. This currently only happens for a couple of the summer holiday weekends and during “camp day”. As with the parallel taxiway issue, this capacity issue can be managed through trying to spread the peaks as additional natural growth happens. As well, with additional development that will occur in terms of expanded MAR facilities and possibly others, this may open up opportunities to share apron facilities during those very peaky weekends, so that any investment in expansion of the main apron could be deferred for quite some time. For this plan, we assume that under the base case, additional apron facilities can be deferred to the end of the 20 year planning horizon.

The only factor that could drive a real need to expand the apron would be commencement of airline service at the airport by someone like Porter that would use large turbo‐props like its Q400s. But this is considered unlikely in the short to medium term for reasons discussed in the forecasts section. Even service by smaller aircraft like 18‐19 seat aircraft may not be sufficient to require an aircraft expansion, depending on what times these services may be scheduled, as these aircraft are in fact similar in size to what one would find on the apron in a typical busy weekend.

NAVAIDS

The airport currently has a number of instrument approach procedures to runway 18‐36 that provide for approach limits of just over 500 ft and 1 ½ mi visibility. With these limits, this runway is currently unavailable for about 5+% of the time due to cloud ceiling or visibility restrictions. A very low cost means of improving this availability by in the order of 3% to 4% would be to provide LPV (Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance) approaches which have the capability to improve the limits down to about 250 ft and 1 mi visibility, depending on the obstacle environment in the immediate vicinity of the airport. These approaches are satellite based and many of the users at Muskoka would probably have the required technology in the cockpit of their aircraft, as the equipment only costs about $15,000 these days. Definitely, the various jets that currently serve the airport would be so equipped, as would many of the higher end private props and the commercial props. The cost of providing these approaches would probably be in the range of some $25,000 +/‐, depending on competitive forces in the market at time of purchase.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Given the low cost of LPV approaches, the airport should seriously consider providing these given the benefits in increased availability. However, in deciding to provide these, the airport must consider that this will move the airport category from non‐instrument to instrument non‐precision12. This has implications for the Airport’s AOM, the various obstacle limitations surfaces, and the associated additional tree clearing that would be required.

Runway lighting provided on Runway 18‐36 currently consists of medium intensity edge lights and medium intensity threshold and end lights. There are no approach lights on either end of the runway. While approach lights would be beneficial in improving the approach guidance, they are not necessary in the case of the current approach limits. Even with new LPV approaches, should they be provided, the airport could function without these as they would only reduce limits from 1 mi to ¾ mi in the case of LPV approaches. At about $ 200k to install for each end of the runway, these would be expensive and difficult to justify. Instead, we would recommend that the airport consider the installation of RILS to provide better guidance on approach. At a cost of only $ 20k for each end of the runway, these are a better investment, at least over the shorter term.

Runway 18 currently is equipped with a PAPI to aid pilots in making visual approaches to this runway as well as aiding those using the instrument approach procedures to this end. Runway 36, which is the most heavily used runway, does not have a PAPI. Pilots using this runway would benefit from the installation a PAPI and safety levels would increase. At an estimated cost of about $ 75k, this would not be expensive given the benefits. We believe serious consideration should be given to installing PAPIs on Runway 36 and as a consequence we have included these in the capital budget.

PASSENGER TERMINAL

The existing passenger terminal was just expanded and renovated in 2007. This terminal should continue to be adequate to meet forecast needs probably for the next 20 years (in terms of sizing)13. There are only two reasons anticipated that may require the terminal to be expanded. The first would be if the airport were to obtain scheduled airline service in aircraft larger than 19 seats, such as a Porter Airlines operation. In this case a large expansion would be required, but in any case this is considered highly unlikely for reasons discussed previously. The second reason would be for the provision of a restaurant, which has often been mentioned in the past. This second item is discussed further later in the development plan.

12 The airport currently has Federal Zoning in place that classifies the main runway at the airport as a Code 3C non‐precision runway. However, due to a number of tree violations on private property located around the airport, the airport has chosen to downgrade the runway classification to non‐instrument. This is consistent with the current instrument approaches that have limits just above 500 ft, or visual limits. To be able to reduce the limits below 500 ft to take advantage of LPV would require that the offending off site trees be trimmed and the airport be re‐classified to non‐precision per the Federal Zoning which is in fact in place. 13 The terminal may require a number of maintenance items over the next 20 years depending on how well the building itself performs and stands up to use. In the capital plan, we have suggested that this building will probably need major roof repairs by the end of the 20 year period, as well as some electrical/mechanical updates, based on our experience at other airports. Provisional budget items and timing have been suggested. But in the end the decision to upgrade or do major maintenance should be based on actual conditions at the time, so that the facility and the capital plan should be reviewed continually to revise on the basis of actual conditions.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

SERVICES

Given the limited growth projected for the airport, and the limited expansion required of key facilities, the various services like fuel, and airport maintenance, etc., should probably be adequate over the next 20 years.

UTILITIES

The airport lands do not currently have any water and sewer connections. Instead current airport developments are serviced through the use of ground wells and sewer service is via septic tanks and septic beds.

There is a nearby sewage treatment facility that services the Corrections Canada facility located to the south of the airport. However, the capacity of this facility is dedicated to Corrections Canada. If there was a desire or a need to extend these services to the airport, then an appropriate capacity sharing agreement would need to be negotiated. However, the cost of then extending the services to the airport would be expensive. The current septic systems have been more than adequate to serve the current developments and the soils conditions at the airport site are generally quite conducive to the use of septic systems, so it would be difficult to justify the expense of extending sewer services to the airport site.

Having said the above, the airport may nonetheless want to at least make provision for the eventual extension of water and sewer services to the site, should environmental regulations change or should local policies be amended to require such provision.

AIRPORT ACCESS

The primary access to the airport is provided from Highway 11 via Ecclestone Drive (Regional Road 118) to the Gravenhust Parkway. This route accesses the airport from the north. A second, though more circuitous, access is provided from the south via Highway 11/Bethune Drive (Regional Road 41) to the Gravenhurst Parkway. This access system should be more than sufficient to meet the long term needs of the airport given that traffic to the airport and the surrounding areas is currently quite light and traffic growth will be limited to only 20%‐30% over the next 20 years.

DEVELOPABLE LAND REQUIREMENTS

There are a total of about 22 acres of aviation related lands developed at the airport. These are spread over 29 lots, with 2 lots remaining undeveloped (but there is significant interest from a number of parties to develop this lot). When the District took over the airport in 1996, there was some 10 acres of the land developed for aviation uses. Since that time, the remaining lands have been developed, with acceleration of development in the last 10 years or so.

In terms of future forecasts for land requirements, this is difficult to estimate given the many uncertainties involved with the markets, how the District may react or take advantage of the various opportunities we have identified, and what the competing airports may be doing. As a consequence, we have developed a number of scenarios for the demand for future land as illustrated in Table 3‐5.

The assumptions behind these scenarios are as follows:

In the medium case, land development happens at a rate which is 25% less than last 20 years;

In the high case, this development occurs at 25% faster rate than in last 20 years; and

In the very high case, land development could experience about 70% more growth than in the past.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Table 3‐5: Forecast Aviation Related Developed Land Requirements

Additional Land Requirements by Time Period (Acres)

0‐5 years 6‐10 years 11‐15 years 16‐20 years Total

Medium Growth 5 4 6 15

High Grow 9 6 5 5 25

Very High Growth 10 10 8 7 35

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

4.0 LAND DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

4.1 LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The airport has effectively run out of development ready land with only 2 lots currently still available. These lots are located up in the current northwest development area. Currently, there is excess demand for additional lots, with a number of current tenants asking for a total of at least 4‐5 lots, totalling in the order of 5 acres or more.

Over the last few years, the District of Muskoka has struggled to define a plan to respond to the demand for additional development due to concerted public opposition and disagreement to any of the proposed development areas and concern from Council members about the cost implications and business case to support a plan. A key purpose of this current study is to review past planning work and to then recommend a sound development plan with an appropriate business case to justify it.

Before getting into the development plan, it may be useful to review previous proposals to develop additional land on the airport. These previous proposals are illustrated schematically in Figure 4‐1.

PREVIOUS LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

THE FIELD LOT DEVELOPMENT

This proposal would have relocated the grass runway to a 14‐32 orientation located further to the north and east of its current location. This move would have freed up some 9‐10 acres immediately to the south of the existing MAR development. Total development cost for this proposal would have been about $ 2M, including the cost of relocating the grass runway.

This proposal was defeated primarily by recreational pilots due to their opposition to moving the grass runway and replacing this with an orientation that they felt was not appropriate and at a length that they felt was too short (just under 2,000 ft vs the existing length of 2,200 ft).

THE WOODLOT DEVELOPMENT

This development proposal would have created additional lots immediately to the west of the current Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing (MAR) development site in the southwest corner of the airport. Total area of the site was about 8 developed acres, providing some 5 lots at an estimated cost of about $ 3.2M.

Although this proposal was consistent with the existing Master Plan and met the key requirement to provide some additional lots to allow MAR to expand their facilities immediately to the west of their existing facilities, it was judged to be too expensive to proceed.

EAST SIDE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

The east side development was the proposal under consideration and review when the decision was made to hire a consultant to develop a Master Plan and Business Pan for the airport. This proposal provided some 25 acres of development in 16 lots located to the east side lands of the airport. At an estimated cost of under $ 4M, this plan would have left the existing grass runway in its current location.

As a result of our initial review of the work carried out to date on development options, a decision was made to take a completely new look at development options for the airport. To start this new process, a list of constraints to development was initially derived so that we could have a clear view of the factors shaping the potential future developments.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Figure 4‐1: Previous Land Development Proposals at Muskoka Airport

CONSTRAINTS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT

OBSTACLE LIMITATION SURFACES

Transport Canada is the Canadian agency responsible for airports. It issues all standards and associated documents that dictate how airports are to be designed, operated, maintained, etc. It is basically also the licensing body that permits airports and airlines to operate, etc.

Their document, TP312, Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices, 4th ed, March 1993, spells out the various standards that apply to design of airports. A key element important to the development at and around airports is the definition of Obstacle Limitation Surfaces, which define the airspace areas that must be protected to allow for the safe operation of flights at the airport. The Muskoka Airport used to be operated by Transport Canada and to protect these Obstacle Limitation Surfaces Transport Canada enacted Federal Airport Zoning Regulations to protect these areas with federal legislation.

The current obstacle limitation surfaces for the airport are illustrated in Appendix C. These surfaces identify the various limits to the location and height of development both on and off the airport. These obstacle limitation surfaces would obviously need to be changed if, for instance, the grass runway were relocated or a new runway be built, etc.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

ELECTRONIC PROTECTION AREAS

Similar to Transport Canada, NavCanada is the agency responsible for Air Traffic Control, Navigation and Airspace Management in Canada. In order to protect the facilities required to support the safe navigation and control of aircraft, they issue standards and guidelines for the protection of the proper functioning of their various navigation aids. This information is published in TP1247, Land Use in Vicinity of Airports.

The only key electronic navigation aid located on the airport site is the Direction Finder (DF). This is a radio frequency transmitter that pilots use to locate the airport. The DF is currently located on the east side of the main runway close to its south end. As part of the planned development to the east of this runway, NavCanada has agreed to relocate this DF further to the north as shown in Figure 4‐2.

Figure 4‐2: Electronic Protection Requirements Around the Direction Finder Equipment

The protected areas around this DF specify that no (metallic) structure can subtend angle greater than 1.20 as measured from the base of the antenna and that no metallic structure can be located within a 365m radius of the antenna. The protected areas around the DF are illustrated in Figure 4‐2 as concentric lines around the DF antenna site.

ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS

There are a number of areas located on and around the airport site that have been identified in previous studies as requiring protection for environmental reasons. These are primarily wetland areas that are important habitat for various local species. In addition, most of the airport site is located on an

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

underground aquifer and as this is an important source of fresh water, it is important to protect against any contamination of this aquifer. The key areas identified to be protected for environmental reasons are identified in Figure 4‐3. Figure 4‐3: Environmentally Sensitive Lands at the Airport

LAND OWNERSHIP

This is a key constraint in that the airport must best use its own land reserves before accessing others. This constraint is at best a soft constraint as the airport can choose to buy adjacent lands that it does not own, if it feels that it requires the additional lands. However adjacent land owners may not wish to sell

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

or may not wish to have airport activities located in even closer proximity to them than may be the case today. So they could resist any purchases or even any proposed expropriations, should the Airport choose to take this route. The current airport boundaries together with existing development features discussed below are all illustrated in Figure 4‐4. Figure 4‐4: Airport Boundaries and Current Developments

Beaver Creek & Fenbrook Federal Institutions

Gravenhurst Parkway

Existing Developments

Gravenhurst Parkway

Existing Developments

Airport Boundary

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

There are a number of existing developments located both on and off the airport site that act as a constraint to any new development, as illustrated in Figure 4‐4. These are:

BEAVER CREEK AND FENBROOK FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS

There are 2 Federal Prison facilities co‐located on a site immediately south of the airport: the Beaver Creek minimum security facility and the Fenbrook medium security site. This prison site constrains any expansion of the airport site to the south. Otherwise, it does not really place any other restrictions on airport development or operations, being one of the very few, if not the only, prison site in Canada that does not restrict the use of the airspace above the prison site.

GRAVENHURST PARKWAY

This roadway runs primarily north‐south along the western boundary of the airport site and currently constrains any expansion of the airport site to the west, as well as basically sterilizing some key potential development lands just to the north of the current terminal/main apron site due to it close proximity to the runway (and the need to protect for a future parallel taxiway extension in this area).

EXISTING ON-SITE HANGARS AND OTHER BUILDINGS

There is quite a number of existing on‐site buildings, hangars, etc, that also constrain new developments. The extent of the existing development is illustrated in Figure 4‐4 as shaded areas. A number of these above developments and constraints might be considered soft constraints in that they could be moved, eliminated or adjusted, if necessary, but at a cost, which may or may not be minor. For instance, the Gravenhurst Parkway could be relocated/re‐routed, if desired, as part of any future developments to the west of the airport site.

NEW EMERGING WIND TURBULENCE THINKING

As a result of a number of incidents at Amsterdam (Schipol) Airport combined with concern relating to encroaching development at the airport, the Amsterdam Airport Authority undertook some significant and ground breaking research into the effect of tall buildings in the vicinity of runway ends. The research, which was both theoretical in nature and then followed up with actual field trials using a building mock‐up and test flights with a 747 and a Fokker 100, showed that additional protection over and above the typical International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)14 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces was required to protect against wind turbulence created by tall buildings in the vicinity of runway ends15. Subsequent to this work in 2006, the Amsterdam Airport has adopted the proposed guidelines to

14 This is the international body tasked with issuing airport standards. Transport Canada standards and guidelines are then generally consistent with these, especially for its international airports. 15 Wind Criteria Due to Obstacles at and around Airports, National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR‐CR‐2006‐261, May 2008

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

protect against wind turbulence effects. Further to this, ICAO has issued this information as guidance to member states and indicated that they are studying the information16. The guidance issued suggests that the height of development in the vicinity of runway ends be limited to less than a 1:35 slope emanating from the runway threshold and centreline and extending down the sides of the runway for up to 1500m. The implications of this guidance are illustrated in Figure 4‐5, where the height contours are shown around the runway ends and down the sides of the runway. Figure 4‐5: New Thinking on Restrictions Near Runway Ends due to Wind Turbulence Effects

We should note that this wind turbulence information is just guidance issued for information for member states to be aware of given the concerns. ICAO has not adopted any standards relating to this information and neither has any other national jurisdiction responsible for airports. The only airport to adopt these as standards has been the Amsterdam Airport, as this is where the problem originated and this is where the key concern has been identified. However, given the potential implications of this information, we know that other progressive airports and professionals are definitely considering this 16 Criteria for Obstacle Induced Wind Disturbances at Amsterdam Schipol Airport, ICAO Aerodrome Meteorological Observation and Forecast Study Group, Ninth Meeting, 26‐30 September 2011, Montreal, AMOFSG/9‐SN No.25 8/8/11.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

information. We also feel that this information definitely warrants due consideration in the case of development at the Muskoka Airport, especially given the fact that smaller aircraft will be more susceptible to these wind turbulence effects than larger aircraft . More discussion is provided on this topic later in the presentation of options. As well, Appendix H also provides more discussion material.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES

Before discussing alternative development options and attempting to determine which option may be the best option, it is important to establish key objectives for this process that will not only drive how these options are formulated and generated but then how these options are compared against each other and evaluated to reach a decision on which option may be the best. The following objectives are proposed for this development plan:

• The usability of the airport should be maximized in order to be capable of not only handling the current fleet of aircraft serving the airport, but also to attracting additional traffic that can contribute important additional revenues to the airport;

• It is important to maximize the amount of developable land that can be created. The land provided should at least meet, if not exceed, the forecast land requirements generated for this study. Meeting the forecast land needs would be a minimal objective, but exceeding these would be preferred as this provides additional flexibility for the airport’s future growth;

• The land created for development should be able to respond to the projected mix of uses, which comprises in reasonably equal parts, larger lots for MRO type activities and larger aircraft types, medium sized lots for private/corporate sized aircraft and possibly aircraft sales, and smaller lots for small aircraft T‐hangars, tie‐down areas, etc.;

• The plan should attempt to provide the additional land and associated facilities for a minimum construction cost;

• Operating and maintenance costs considerations are also important, and the proposed options should minimize these, as well;

• The proposals must respect and work within the constraints inherent in the current site, though as noted above, some of these constraints are soft and may be adjustable under certain circumstances. As well, the plan should attempt to minimize creating constraints to future development, if and where possible ;

• The plan should present minimum risks to the airport. These risks may come from a number of sources, such as current tenants possibly leaving due to development restrictions, or imposing operating penalties or restrictions due to development not considering all appropriate location factors;

• The importance of generating additional revenues for the airport cannot be overstated given the airport’s current financial situation. So options must maximize the additional revenue potential associated with the proposed developments;

• The economic impacts of any proposed developments should be maximized, as in general, it will be difficult for municipal airports like Muskoka to actually generate positive financial results.

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

The Terms of Reference for this study indicated that the starting point for any assessment of development options should be the current plan to develop the eastside lands. This development plan is contained in Figure 4‐6. We have named this plan – Plan A.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

The key features of this plan are that it:

Keeps Runway 09‐27 – the grass runway – in its current location;

Develops the Eastside Area in phases with some 16 lots over 25 ac;

Would cost close to $ 4M to implement in its final form;

Could also allow protection for future development of Westside Woodlot – 4‐5 lots – 8+/‐ ac. This part has been added by SNC as a long term protection area, in case demand was to reach the point where this may be required, so we have shown this as dashed lines.

The advantages of this plan are:

2 runways provide excellent usability at an estimated 97+% (@10kt crosswinds) and 99+% (@13kt crosswinds) under the assumption that the grass runway remains a grass runway;

Smaller aircraft have good access with lower crosswinds than with just 1 runway, though if the grass runway remains as is the “quality” of this runway and the usability would not be the same as if thus runway were paved;

It retains capability to extend and even pave the grass strip in the future, if desirable;

The maximum length of this runway within the property is estimated at about 3,000 ft , if extended into the rock pile to the west (and using the Beaver Creek Rd as the western constraint and the east property line as the other constraint);

The plan provides an additional 25 ac of developed land17 compared to only 22 ac now;

This eastside area is relatively inexpensive to develop at $160k/ac (excluding water & sewer) and it is easily phased:

o Alternatively, this eastside area would cost an estimated $ 2.5M excluding taxiways, or some $ 100k/ac;

o By comparison, the created value of the eastside lands is estimated at some $ 60k/ac., which is much less than the investment cost.

Some disadvantages of this plan are:

It locates the additional lands requested by Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing (MAR) to the eastside and forces them to have split operations from their current westside facilities, and they have expressed a desire to keep operations together;

The taxiway provided to service this development is quite long as it needs to “wrap around” the entire development and becomes the single most expensive element of this plan;

The plan as it stands does not appear to fully incorporate the constraints from the NavCanada DF which restricts the height of the lots to the north of the eastside area to about 9m (this item

17 or 33 additional ac if the 8 ac in the west is included. This woodlot area, would be reserved for future and this is more difficult to phase, given blasting requirements, etc

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

was in fact incorporated) with progressively higher development permitted to the south (this feature did not appear to be completely incorporated in the plan18);

It does not take into consideration the new wind turbulence information available, which when factored into the plan would NOT permit any lots with development heights to 15m as required by MAR, and any other potentially new MRO type developments.

Figure 4‐6: Plan A‐ Current Plan for Eastside Area Developed by Staff – Adjusted by SNC1

1Added dashed Woodlot Development to the west

Figure 4‐7 illustrates this Plan A adjusted to reflect the more detailed constraints from the DF as well as the new height guidance related to wind turbulence. We have labelled this Plan A1. Other than

18 We tried to contact NavCanada on numerous occasions during this study and failed to make contact as the individuals we contacted failed to return our calls. We have used our interpretation of their current guidelines as contained in TP1247 in this assessment based on our previous experience in this area. However, we should note that NavCanada has recently been reviewing these various guidelines and updating these to generally be more consistent with international guidelines as published by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

consideration of this new height guidance and the NavCanada DF, all features of this option would be the same as Plan A described above. The implications of these 2 constraints are as follows:

The maximum height of buildings on the eastside would be limited to 5m in the south and west, to about 10m in the north east;

Uses of this land would be limited to small aircraft hangars in the south and west to medium hangars (10+/‐m) in the north and east lots, basically all similar to current developments on the airport;

MRO type hangars for larger aircraft like the A320s (15m+/‐ in height) would not be possible;

The main runway, 18‐36, and 09‐27, both contribute equally to the restrictions in eliminating MAR buildings here.

Therefore even this revised option does not respond appropriately to a number of the key development objectives established for this plan. Figure 4‐7: Plan A1‐ Current Plan for Eastside Area‐ With New Height Guidance

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

As a result of our concern about the above plan not being able to satisfy some of the basic objectives of this development planning study, as well as a number of other issues related to the plan with respect to the efficiency of the layout, we decided to reformulate this plan to see how we could best improve it. One of the key issues with development Plan A and its variants was the height guidance with respect to wind turbulence. As discussed in Appendix H, we determined that implementation of the recommendations of the Amsterdam guidelines was just too restrictive for the small site here at Muskoka. While we still felt that adherence to the principles established in the Amsterdam work was very important, we felt we needed to relax these guidelines somewhat for Muskoka in an attempt to find a compromise between this wind turbulence thinking and necessary development at the airport. This process led to the consideration of 1:25 height guidance for Muskoka instead of the 1:35 recommended per the Amsterdam work, as discussed in Appendix H. This appendix also discusses the implications of not implementing the wind turbulence guidelines. Figure 4‐8 illustrates the revised Plan A (now labelled as Plan A‐R) that resulted from this re‐thinking and optimisation/improvement process. Figure 4‐8: Plan A – R: Eastside Area Plan Optimized

In this version of the plan, we have reconfigured the lots for the eastside development to be developed more economically and to try to better fit with the proposed height contour guidelines. The previous

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

plan had a long taxiway serving lots that were oriented in a different configuration and the lots were located only on one side of the taxiway. In this case we have created a partial parallel to 18‐36 and then 2 stub taxiways that then have lots on either side (in the case of the north stub) or they do double duty of land service and runway access as in the case of the south stub. The amount of taxiway required in this case to purely service the lots is much less than the previous option at only about 950m vs 1250m, for a reduction of 25%. To better illustrate the potential development heights associated with this revised plan, we have added buildings to each lot that are coded with respect to the maximum permissible heights: less than 10m, between 10 and 15 and more than 15m. As before, the DF restrictions limit heights at the north end of the site to about 9m, and in the middle to about 13m. The new 1:25 wind turbulence contours are also illustrated in this plan and while these contours now allow greater development heights, there are still no lots that would allow buildings of up to 15m, especially taking into account the combined effects with the DF restrictions. The effect of the new guidelines, reconfiguration and application of DF restrictions still results in most of the lots being limited to less than 15m in development height, similar to most of the current developments in the northwest portion of the airport. In fact, most lots are limited to less than 10m in height, with only 4‐5 lots permitting buildings over 10m, but less than 15m. While this is an improvement over the previous A plan options, this still does not provide sufficient land area for larger MRO type activities, similar to what current tenants like MAR and Lake Central Airways would engage in. The total area developed for the eastside lands in this version is similar to before at about 24 acres, in terms of the eastside area itself, but we have added about 3 acres of possible landside development to the south of Runway 09‐27 along Beaver Cr Rd to be more consistent with the other plan to be discussed next. As noted earlier, we have reconfigured this plan to take the long length of previous taxiway and use this more efficiently. In this version of this plan, we have been able to create a full parallel to 09‐27 so that if and when the runway is paved, it could off load demand on 18‐36 as well as providing a more “into the wind” option for the smaller aircraft. Runway 09‐27 in this configuration has a maximum length within the existing property of about 3,000 ft, using the Beaver Cr Rd as the western constraint and the east property line (with no tree trimming) as the eastern constraint. If land were to be purchased to the east, this runway could be extended to about 430019+/‐ ft. Care would need to be taken when constructing in these lands to the east, as this is an environmental area. However, per the environmental report for this area, much of the work would appear to be

19 This length is provided for discussion purposes only as similar lengths have repeatedly been suggested by members of the Airport Advisory Committee. However, our analysis in section 3.4 clearly points out that something in the range of about 2,800 ft would probably be the maximum length required to handle the variety of aircraft serving the airport that might not be able to use the main runway during certain wind conditions.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

concentrated in areas where the existing vegetation is in abundance and could afford to be partially eliminated or relocated20. If this runway were to be extended to about 4,300 ft +/‐, as some members of the Airport Advisory Committee have suggested, this would result in a classification of the runway as a Code 3 runway (non‐instrument). Per Transport Canada OLS requirements, the runway would then need a 45m strip width each side of the runway and 1:7 transitional surfaces. This transitional surface would be violated by the existing Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing hangar. The limitations imposed by this hangar would restrict this runway to a Code 2 non‐instrument runway with a 30m strip width and 1:5 transitional surfaces each side of the runway. This would limit this runway to a length of about 3900 ft as a consequence. The estimated development costs for this Plan A‐R are:

$ 3.5M for the land development, including taxiways (for land access only), roads, drainage, etc., (about $ 145k/acre or $ 85k/acre excluding taxiway costs) and

$ 1.5M to pave the grass runway (2,000+/‐ ft) plus another $ 0.7M to build the associated taxiway access, if and when it is decided to pave these.

These costs do not include any land acquisition costs associated with extending the grass runway to the east, as at this time we are only proposing a runway of about 2,000 ft. And in any case, up to 3,000 ft could be built within the current property boundary before requiring any additional land to be purchased. As the above plan and its variations fail to meet the various key development objectives for this plan, we attempted to identify an alternate approach by learning from the shortcomings of the above plan. Plan B‐R was developed as a result. This plan is illustrated in Figure 4‐9 This plan moves the grass runway to try to create additional land for development. In this case, the runway is shown in a 12/30 configuration, as this appears to be one of the best options for maximizing runway usability for light aircraft, as noted previously in the analysis of wind direction and usability. The runway is shown as far north as possible to maximize the available development lands to the east. This location and orientation also should also eliminate the need for any off‐site tree trimming at the west of this runway. This plan has 2 primary development areas: one that was previously referred to as the Field Lots; and a second area located to the east of the main runway and to the south of the relocated “grass” runway. We show 2 sub‐options in this plan for developing the lands to the east, as we will discuss in more detail below.

Figure 4‐9 shows the DF limitations for this plan, where it is clear that none of the development lands would be limited to less than 15m per the DF restrictions, as all of the proposed development lands are located further away from this facility than they were in the case of Plan A and its variants.

20 Additional review of this interpretation should be solicited from the environmental consultants who undertook the initial study.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Figure 4‐9: Plan B – R: Eastside Area Plan Variant by SNC

Figure 4‐9 also illustrates the implications of the revised 1:25 contours for wind turbulence. In this case, newly created “field lots” just south of the existing Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing (MAR) buildings could be developed to over 15m in height (a total of 4 lots in the western part of this area), while the remaining area could be over 10m, if necessary. We have used the same coding with hatched buildings as in the previous slide to better illustrate the associated building height restrictions. In the eastside lands, there are about 3 lots that could be developed at over 15m, with an additional 6 at over 10m but less than 15. The remaining lots would need to be less than 10m, which would still be quite adequate for many of the envisioned uses at the airport, as most of these buildings are generally less than 10m now. Two alternate layouts are shown for the eastside lands as follows:

The first shows space for common type T‐hangars and some apron tie downs, mixed with some mid size lots for private or corporate type aircraft and larger lots for maintenance type activities like Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing, Lake Central Air Services (LCAS) and Grass Roots;

The second layout (inset) shows more individual lots that would generally accommodate the same uses, but uses like T‐hangars and tie downs would be developed by individuals on appropriate lots. (Some lot development layouts for some of these are illustrated in Appendix J).

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

This plan also includes some landside only lots shown in a pinkish shade. There are 2 groups of these: in the south east portion of the eastside lands and under the Runway 36 approach. The total lands developed in this plan include:

25+ acres of primarily airside development for the eastside lands (similar to Plan A‐R)

9 acres of airside lands in the field lots, and

about 2‐3 acres under the runway 36 approach that would be landside development only, again similar to Plan A‐R

The runway in this option could initially be about 2,00021 ft long, with some minimal tree trimming possibly required to the east and north. If land were purchased to the east, this runway could be extended to a maximum length of about 3400+/‐ ft, using the Gravenhurst Pkwy as the constraint to the west and the Beaver Creek to the east. Our analysis in an earlier section showed that about 2,800 ft is probably the maximum runway length that would be required for this runway, to provide the wind coverage required for the smaller aircraft using the airport. This would require the purchase of lands to the east22. The estimated development costs for this plan would be as follows:

$ 3.6 M for the eastside lands (this is similar to the costs in Plan A‐R and the per acre costs would also be similar)

$ 1.7 M for the “field lots” including relocating the DF and grass runway (with the per acre costs here higher at $ 170k including the taxiway or $ 140k excluding this)

$ 1.5 M to pave the grass runway (2,000+/‐ ft), if and when this were to occur, though in this case, no additional taxiway costs would be involved.

These costs do not include any land acquisition costs associated with extending the grass runway to the east. The following summarizes our comparison of the 2 sets of options that we generated for this development plan. This comparison is illustrated in Table 4‐1. In this comparison it is appropriate to also consider the do‐nothing option, as this puts the development options themselves in a proper perspective. In the case of the do‐nothing or status quo option, we would have the following:

We would merely protect for the current situation with the existing runways;

21 This is based on information, drawings and pictures provided in the PSMI study. More detailed on‐site surveys would be required to establish an actual length possible without any need to access the property to the east for tree trimming, or to identify what level of tree trimming may be required. If this runway were paved, it could extend further to the west by some 300‐400 ft, crossing the main runway and extending beyond. This may be one means of getting the length of 2,000 to 2,00 ft without needing to purchase lands to the east. 22 These lands are estimated to costs between $50,000 and $200,000 depending on how much land would actually need to be purchased and on the market value at the time of purchase.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

The usability would be about 97% for a 10 kt cross wind and about 98.5 for 13 kts;

The existing 22 ac of developed land would be all that would be available to generate land rents (and much of this land is actually sold (compared to leased) so that the revenue has already gone into the existing reserve fund);

With this option there would be no required investment in any new facilities, though some investment would be required to upgrade and maintain the facilities, such as runway overlays, etc., as will be discussed in sections 4.2 and 4.3;

There would be little incremental revenue, at least from land rents, but there would be some growth in aircraft movements, and consequently fuel sales, landing fees, etc, though obviously not as much growth as in the development options;

The airport would be foregoing the potential economic impact of any new developments, such as Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing (MAR)’s proposal to expand their current facilities, as this customer would go elsewhere for their expansion.

There is also a risk that someone like MAR or LCAS might even pull up stakes and take their existing operations elsewhere, so not only would the airport forego new economic impacts, they may in fact lose some of the existing economic benefits of airport activity. Now let’s look more carefully at the 2 key development options presented: Plan A‐R and Plan B‐R.

In terms of usability, both options provide virtually identical usability on the basis that the grass runway is paved and extended to satisfy all of the aircraft that can operate at maximum 10 kt crosswind. Plan A‐R more than doubles the amount of land available for development by adding some 27 ac23 to the current 22 ac, but Plan B‐R can add an additional 37‐38 ac (compared to existing) or 35% more than Plan A‐R;

Even with the revised wind turbulence assumptions, the east side development in Plan A‐R still cannot accommodate any lots up to 15m. This risks MAR and other MROs going elsewhere for their expansion. But in any case, MAR at least does not want to be in the east side lands;

On the other hand, Plan B‐R provides lots with over 15+m height capability immediately adjacent MAR, allowing easy expansion, but as well, provides higher development lots in the eastside area as well, for other similar and possibly synergistic developments;

The capital costs for the development are similar in each option, in that the major development to the east is about the same cost and the cost of paving (if and when) the grass runway is also the same cost. However, if we look closely at the total costs shown, Plan B‐R costs a total of $ 6.8M vs $ 5.7 M for Plan A‐R, which is 20% more cost for 35% more land developed;

Incremental revenues will be higher in Plan B‐R over the long term, due to the additional lands that can be developed, as will the potential incremental economic impacts also be higher. As will be shown in a later section, the incremental revenues from development eventually eliminate the current fiscal gap in annual revenues, sometime between 2020 and 2030 depending on what assumptions are made as to the pace of development;

23 These areas do not include the additional lands that could be developed in the west rock pile or any other lands discussed later that are located in the north part of the airport lands.

PED-9-2013-4B



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Table 4‐1: Comparison of Development Options

OPTION USABILITY DEVELOPABLE LAND (ac)

RISKS CONSTRAINTS $ CAPEX INCREMENTAL REVENUE POTENTIAL

INCREMENTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT POT’L

Status Quo – Protect runways

97% (10kt) 98.5% (13kt)

22 ac current

MAR and others may go elsewhere

No additional land for development

$ 0 $ 0 ‐

Plan A ‐ R 99.5% (10kt) 98.5% (13kt)

Additional 24 ac in east 2‐3 ac landside

MAR and others may go elsewhere

Height limits NO MAR + Other development

$ 3.5M (east) $1.5M runway $0.7M taxiway

>$100k/yr revenue3 or >$ 2M in value4 (assumes 100% take‐up )

Up to $ 8M in direct economic impacts annually

Plan B ‐ R 99.5% (10kt) 98.5% (13kt)

Additional 25+ ac to the east 9 ac in field lots 2‐3 ac landside

Land to east may not be purchasable

While a total of 7+/‐ lots at 15+m and another 6 +/‐ at 10+m, other lots still height restricted

$ 3.6M (east) $ 1.7M (west) $1.5M runway

>$140k/yr revenue3 or Up to $ 3M in value4 (assumes 100% take‐up)

> $11M in direct economic impacts annually

Notes:

1. Plan A‐R can provide a 3,000+/‐ ft runway with no land acquisition required

2. Plan B‐R requires land acquisition to the east (15‐20 ac) to achieve same 3,000 +/‐ ft runway length 3. Based on about $ 1/m2 lease rate 4. Reflects a land value of about $ 80k/ac.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Both options can accommodate a 2,800‐3,000+/‐ ft crosswind runway, though in Plan B‐R, additional land will be required to be purchased to the east for this to be possible (and there is a risk that this may be difficult to purchase), whereas in Plan A‐R this length could be accommodated within the current property boundary;

Overall, the airfield system and resulting aircraft operations are probably similar in both options, though Plan B‐R may be considered to have a slightly better configuration in that it doesn’t have buildings in as close proximity to the runway, as is the case with the MAR hangar to Runway 09 in Plan A‐R as well as the big drop off to the south of runway 09‐27.

In terms of implementation and phasing, Plan B‐R should result in lower expenditures in earlier years, as this option would be easier to phase;

As well, Plan B‐R would better satisfy an immediate requirement to provide lands for MAR expansion.

All in all Plan B‐R would appear to be the best plan for development at the Muskoka Airport. It would maximize the amount of land available for development, thus improving the airport’s revenue and economic picture, while also improving overall airside operations, with the provision of a possible paved cross wind runway and associated taxiway infrastructure. The above discussion has focused on alternative land development options for the airport’s key lands located in the southern portion of the airport site. But there are a number of opportunities, both short term and longer term, for developing some smaller areas and parcels in the north of the airport site. Figure 4‐10: Additional Land Development Opportunities in Airport North

The first is to develop some tie down facilities along Taxiway A in the area to the north and south of the Compass Rose, as illustrated in Figure 4‐10. Previous studies have suggested that the taxiway in this area should be relocated closer to the runway as it is located further from the runway than necessary. This would free up some land to expand the land parcels in this area (to the west). However, we do not feel that such investment would be useful as it would

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


cost much more than it could return in future revenues. However, using the extra land located between the taxiway and runway for tie downs would be an inexpensive way to make use of this “extra” land. There is a potential to provide about ½ ac of tie downs that could generate $ 2k in annual revenues for virtually no cost. The second possible opportunity to develop some additional lands in this north part of the airport site is located to the east of the threshold of Runway 18. This is also illustrated in Figure 4‐10. This is a thin sliver of land sandwiched in between the runway (strip) and the environmental area immediately to the east. There is just enough width here to locate some aircraft storage facilities utilizing Quonset Huts, similar to those located on the west side of the runway. The soils here are sandy and could easily support a grass/dirt type taxiway and road into these lots at little cost. There is a total area of probably 3‐5 acres that could be developed for these facilities, and this could generate upwards of $ 30,000 annually in land rents and AMC. In discussions with key stakeholders, we understand that there are a lot of aircraft, especially float types, being stored on private lands spread throughout Muskoka. These inexpensive storage facilities would be attractive to such owners and would generate revenues for the airport, not only in terms of land rents, but for fuel and other sales.

4.2 INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION AND MAINTENANCE (CAPITAL) PLAN

EXPANSION

In parallel with the proposed land developments to accommodate forecast and proposed growth at the airport, the airport must also plan for the expansion of the airport’s infrastructure to support these other activities. This infrastructure plan should include the following expansionary elements: Parallel taxiway to 18‐36:

As discussed in an earlier section, during most weekends in summer, demand is approaching where there is a need for a full parallel taxiway;

The guideline we use is when peak operations exceed 25 +/– on a repeated basis we would probably need to consider a full parallel ‐ we are effectively there now;

Through some demand management and peak spreading we could delay this, say 5 to 10 years, or so, depending on how successful the demand management strategies were (though as we note below, we could defer this for a long time if we extend and pave the grass runway);

The cost to extend the parallel taxiway south to form a full parallel is estimated at about $ 1.2 ‐ $ 1.3 M, assuming it is extended for the larger aircraft (similar pavement strengths to main runway and main apron);

Optionally, this parallel could be for only light aircraft as these are the most frequent to use the runway system;

But as discussed below, the need for this parallel taxiway could be deferred for quite some time (possibly to the latter part of the 20 year planning period for this plan), if the grass runway were paved;

Consequently, we recommend that only protection be put in place for the eventual extension of this parallel taxiway along the entire length of Runway 18‐36, and that a decision on actually constructing it be deferred indefinitely. For maximum flexibility to respond to uncertain future

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


demand types and mix, this protection should be for full Code C type aircraft (even though the airport may choose to construct its width and pavement for Code B (smaller. lighter) aircraft).

Extending and paving the grass runway to about 2800 ft:

In earlier sections, we made the case that to provide adequate usability at the airport for all types of aircraft, but especially the lighter aircraft, there is a need for a second paved runway;

While a direct replacement for the current grass runway would only need to be about 2,000 ft, this runway should eventually be extended to about 2,800 ft to allow more aircraft to use it year round, with 2,800 ft probably accommodating around 80% of the aircraft using the airport, and possibly close to 100% of the aircraft that could not use the main runway during periods of high crosswinds;

The estimated cost to pave this runway would be about $ 1.1 M for 2,000 ft or $ 1.5M for the 2,800 ft, excluding lighting24.

Paving this runway at a cost of $ 1.5M would be similar to the cost of constructing the parallel taxiway at some $ 1.2M‐ $1.3M;

Paving the runway would eliminate the need for the parallel taxiway, if a significant number of operations could use this runway during busy periods;

This would be much more efficient use of scare funds than constructing the parallel taxiway, as this taxiway only provides some possible runway capacity improvements, that can also be provided by the paving this runway;

The parallel taxiway does not provide any land access to developable lands, otherwise it would probably be considered the better investment;

We therefore recommend that the second runway proposed as part of the development Plan Option B‐R, i.e, new runway 12‐30, be paved;

Given the discussions at the Airport Advisory Committee, together with comments received from private pilots and given the competitive environment with the competing airports and their aggressive expansion plans, we recommend that consideration be given to initially constructing this crosswind runway to a full 2,800 ft, if appropriate funding can be obtained25;

Building more than about 2,000 ft would require the purchase of lands to the east of the airport. These lands should be purchased soon to allow the runway to be extended to the proposed 2,800 ft. In purchasing these lands, the airport may wish to protect for an ultimate maximum to about 3400 ft, which is the maximum possible using the Beaver Creek (with an appropriate

24 It may be sufficient to make this runway a day time VFR runway only, so that no lighting would be required. However, it would be appropriate to plan for its eventual lighting, should future circumstances require. Lighting would probably add about $0.5 M to the cost of the runway. 25 We have not carried out a separate business case for paving and extending this runway. But we did include a 2,800 ft paved runway in all of the financial analyses as a base item along with the proposed developments. The results of the financial analysis clearly show that aggressive development at the airport, with the consequent increase in traffic, has the potential to improve the airport’s financial situation beyond that possible by not investing at all, or only investing in more limited expansions.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


setback) as the maximum eastern extent of this runway. Also see discussion on very long term plan in section 4.4).

Expansion of the main aircraft/terminal apron:

The forecast facility requirements discussion indicated that an expansion of the aircraft apron could probably be deferred to the end of the 20 year planning period, if appropriate demand management strategies were implemented to cope with extreme peaks experienced on very busy weekends;

As well, we do not foresee the feasibility of any scheduled commercial airline services at the airport, at least over the next 10 years, but we could see these at a later time, which may require an expansion of the apron;

In order to protect for future apron expansion capability, the airport should reserve the area immediately to the north of the existing apron for future expansion.

The passenger terminal:

The passenger terminal should generally be adequate in terms of size for a long time in the future, given current traffic and the probability that little will change;

However, should scheduled service be provided, this terminal could require expansion;

For a carrier like Porter (with 70 seat Q400s), the expansion could be significant, requiring security, etc;

But such a service would be probably 10 years away, at least, if ever;

A scheduled service by a smaller carrier operating something like a 18‐19 seat aircraft may be more likely, but even this is very uncertain;

A much smaller terminal expansion would be required for these smaller aircraft;

In any case, allowance should be made for space for either of these eventualities.

Airport restaurant:

Restaurants at airports of this size are typically very hard to justify and they don’t make money. In this case, it is even more difficult given the truck stop restaurant up the road;

Having said the above, we understand that there is a true desire to have a destination café or some facility that could attract visiting pilots to come and buy food, buy some gas, possibly pay some landing fee, all factors that do have an economic impact on the community;

Other competing airports have such restaurant/café facilities, so to remain competitive, it would be desirable to provide something;

The only suggestion we can make that would minimize expenditures/losses, while capitalizing on the economic benefits, is a small facility that could be operated much like at gas stations, where the staff multi‐task and thus the facilities would be very simple, providing coffee, drinks, sandwiches, desserts and with no cooking facilities, with airport/terminal staff handling the goods, activities, cash, etc. For “hot food”, it may be possible to have a deal with the truck stop up the road to deliver these on an as ordered/required basis;

A test could be carried out within the existing facility, and if it proves successful, the terminal could be expanded slightly airside to accommodate this activity;

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Providing an on‐site restaurant could provide synergies with the current aircraft catering business as many of the food items may already then be on‐site, and some of the associated facilities like freezers, etc could be shared.

MAINTENANCE

In addition to expanding existing facilities to meet growth projections, to satisfy current deficiencies or to provide facilities as a result of a wish list or to meet some policy objectives, it is important to invest as well in the maintenance of the current facilities. Some of the facilities maintenance is done under the operating budgets (if the items cost less than $ 50,000), but must be taken care of in the Capital budgets if the costs are greater than this.

Key future maintenance projects identified in the current capital plan or added by the consultants are as follows:

The main runway – 18‐36

In 2011, Exp Services carried out a pavement re‐evaluation of the runway and apron surfaces. In their report, they rated the pavement in fair to good condition describing it as generally old asphalt pavement with underlying granular layer;

The report concluded that the pavement would continue to deteriorate and recommended rehabilitation by 2015 through careful monitoring and maintenance. A new asphalt surface was recommended using Cold‐In‐Place Recycling described in further detail in the report;

Proposed budget for this work was estimated at $ 4M;

We concur with the recommendation to monitor the pavements and plan for a 2015 rehab. However, we also recommend consideration of alternative techniques such as hot in place recycling, which is being used extensively in Western Canada, but currently is not been done in Ontario. It is anticipated that such alternatives should be available in Ontario by the time the runway needs to be overlaid. We estimate that the rehab cost with such an approach could be reduced to about $ 2.5M, but then the service life before another rehab is required would be shorter (10‐15 years vs 15‐20 for the approach recommended by Exp);

In addition, to the 2015 rehab, given its 15‐20 year life, another rehab will be required in the 2030‐2035 timeframe. Given the time frame for our study (to 2032), we have chosen not to include this additional item at this time, but the situation will just need to be monitored at the time;

As well as major rehabs, the runway will require occasional patching and crack sealing, etc. The current budget shows $ 90k in 2013 and an additional $ 90k in 2019. Much of the crack sealing can be done in the operating budget, as can some of the patching. But s well, if saved up and done less often, this work can be done in larger “lumps” and capitalised. This item should be monitored and it may necessary to actually repeat this item in the budget in something like 5 year increments.

The Crosswind Runway 09‐27 (or 12‐30)

The current “grass runway” only requires the occasional grading and rolling which is done with operating funds;

In this plan, we recommend moving the current runway to a 12‐30 orientation and that consideration be given to paving this runway;

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


As consequence, if the runway is paved, then an allowance should be made for a future overlay of this runway, sometime in the 2028 – 2032 timeframe.

Taxiways

Many of the taxiways at the airport were overlaid over the last few years. Therefore, these should generally be good for another 15‐20 years;

For capital planning purposes we have chosen to include the next overlays to occur around 2030+/‐ and have shown about $ 1M for this;

As with all facilities, careful continual monitoring of conditions is paramount and adjustments made to actually timing based on current condition at the time.

Aprons

The main aircraft apron was expanded in 2007, and this portion should be good for some time;

The older portion of the apron will be upgraded as part of the runway project in 2015 and should consequently be looked at again at the same time as the main runway gets overlaid again towards the end of the planning period;

Given a 15‐20 year for asphalt pavements, the new portion of the apron will likely need to be upgraded in the 2022 to 2027 time frame. We have tentatively shown an upgrade to occur around 2024 in the financial model for the capital plan.

Passenger Terminal Building

The passenger terminal building was significantly expanded in 2007 as part of the inclusion of the Little Norway memorial;

At the time substantial improvements were made to all of the older portions of the building to bring these up to date as well;

Over time, many of the elements of the terminal, whether structural (as in the case of items like windows, or roof, etc) or mechanical and electrical, will deteriorate and require upgrading;

A reasonable service life for many of these elements is about 20‐25 years, so that by 2027 +/‐, there may need to be some investments in this area;

In the proposed capital plan we have shown some tentative dollars for some upgrades in 2025 to electrical/mechanical at about $ 50k and structural at about $ 100k in 2027.

Maintenance and Storage Buildings

The maintenance and storage buildings at the airport were all built at different times and consequently have different service lives;

Some of these buildings are small and the maintenance will be done from operating funds;

The major item identified in the capital plan in this area is a garage roof replacement estimated at about $ 85k and planned for 2013.

Airfield Lighting

The airfield lighting system underwent a major upgrade a few years ago (2009), at which time many of the items like the lights and constant current regulators were replaced;

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Given about a 20‐25 year service life for many of these items, most of these should be OK until the end of the planning period for this study or beyond;

However, technology is changing and many airports are switching to LED lighting to save on operating costs, due to lower consumption and longer life of these new fixtures;

As a consequence, we have shown an allowance in the capital plan around 2022 +/‐ for some type of upgrade to the lighting system;

As well, we anticipate that given the age of the field electrical centre which provides power to the lighting system, some future investments may be required to this. We have tentatively shown dollars for this in 2021. As well, with the changes occurring in technologies and the substantial energy savings possible as a result, the airport may wish to upgrade the equipment in the FEC to take advantage of these savings;

While technically not an issue related to maintenance, we also recommend the installation of PAPis on runway 36, as discussed in the requirements section (3.4).

This proposed maintenance plan is tentative and based on our experience at other airports. It was not part of the terms of reference to do detailed assessments of the various facilities. But we feel that the plan as laid out should be quite reflective of future requirements. But as in any plan, the facilities and their condition must be monitored periodically and re‐assessments made as to current conditions and when the facilities should be replaced or upgraded. A major re‐assessment of the capital plan for maintenance items should probably be carried out in about 10 years or less.

More discussion on the financial implications of the various capital requirements is provided in the financial discussions in the next section (5.0). The phasing and timing of the various capital expenditures are summarized in the following section.

4.3 PHASING PLAN

The above discussions have dealt with the provision of development lands and appropriate associated infrastructure to meet the forecast needs of the airport. As well, we have discussed the capital requirements for maintaining the existing or planned future facilities.

The following material summarizes our recommendations with respect to the timing of the provision of these additional facilities. In addition, we incorporate into this discussion the requirement to update various existing facilities such as the existing runway, and other facilities, so that we create a complete Capital Plan for the airport that includes expansionary projects and major maintenance as well.

Our recommended phasing plan for both the expanded facilities under the high case growth scenario and the updating or modernizing of the existing facilities is summarized in Table 4‐2.

Table 4‐3 presents the same information for the medium growth case.

Table 4‐2: Proposed Phasing Plan (High Growth Case)

Project Cost ($M) Year Trigger

Short term (0‐5 years)

Grass Runway Relocation

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


o Land purchase & DF relocation 0.5 2013 Land Demand26

o Construction 0.3 2014 Land Demand

o Paving 1.5 2016 Policy decision

Phase 1 Field Lots 0.6 2014 Land Demand


Runway 18‐36 rehabilitation 4.027 2015 Pavement Condition

Runway repairs 0.09 2013 Condition

Garage roof replacement 0.09 2013 Condition

Install PAPIs Runway 36 0.80 2017 Safety

Medium term (6‐10 years)

Phase 1 East Side Lots 1.0 2020 Land Demand


FEC Upgrade 0.5 2021 Condition

Airfield Lighting Upgrades 0.1 2022 Condition/policy


Long term (11‐20 years)


Apron overlay 0.1 2024 Condition

Terminal mechanical/electrical 0.05 2025 Condition

Terminal Roof 0.1 2027 Condition

Taxiway Overlays 1.0 2031 Condition

Runway overlay 12/30 0.4 2028 Condition

Table 4‐3: Proposed Phasing Plan (Medium Growth Case)

Project Cost ($M) Year Trigger

Short term (0‐5 years)

Grass Runway Relocation

o Land purchase & DF relocation 0.5 2013 Land Demand28

o Construction 0.3 2014 Land Demand


26 Land demand for this phasing plan assumed to follow most likely demand scenario 27 This could be reduced to around $ 2.5M if new technique like hot in place asphalt were used, but new pavement life would be reduced to around 10 years instead of about 15 years for current plan. 28 Land demand for this phasing plan assumed to follow most likely demand scenario

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Runway 18‐36 rehabilitation 4.029 2015 Pavement Condition


Garage roof replacement 0.09 2013 Condition

Install PAPIs Runway 36 0.80 2017 Safety

Medium term (6‐10 years)

Grass Runway Paving 1.5 2018 Policy Decision



FEC Upgrade 0.5 2021 Condition

Airfield Lighting Upgrades 0.1 2022 Condition/policy


Long term (11‐20 years)

Apron overlay 0.1 2024 Condition

Terminal mechanical/electrical 0.05 2025 Condition

Terminal Roof 0.1 2027 Condition

Taxiway Overlays 1.0 2031 Condition

Runway overlay 12/30 0.4 2028 Condition

4.4 VERY LONG TERM PLAN

The Muskoka Airport is well located just outside, but still in close proximity to, Canada’s most heavily populated area – the Golden triangle of Southern Ontario. There are many opportunities created with this proximity in that there will always be a large local source of tourists and visitors, as well as skilled workers nearby, especially as the population and employment in this part of the province continues to expand outwards from the Greater Toronto Area. But in addition to this population and employment, there will be other opportunities created as aviation is generally an expanding industry with no sign of turning negative in any way (at least in the long term view).

Forecasts for the aviation industry show greater need for trained aviation professionals, whether pilots, or mechanics and a greater need for aircraft, whether new or to maintain the ever expanding aircraft fleet. This will create ever expanding opportunities for airports in the future. While the outlook for general aviation overall is not as rosy as for the aviation industry as a whole, there will always be significant opportunities to take advantage of for those creative enough to identify these.

In an earlier section of this report we have reviewed the facilities and plans of some of the areas’ competing airports. Many of these airports have put in place bold plans to expand their facilities to cater to potential future growth. There is the old adage that says: “build it and they will come”. While we don’t necessarily subscribe to this, we do know that if you don’t have a plan and that if you are not prepared to accommodate future growth, but as well, if you are not actively marketing your facilities and aggressively chasing the opportunities, then definitely the traffic will not come.

29 This could be reduced to around $ 2.5M if new technique like hot in place asphalt were used, but new pavement life would be reduced to around 10 years instead of about 15 years for current plan.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


The Muskoka Airport currently has excellent facilities, better in many ways than some of its key competitors, is well located, and has a very good reputation among many of its users. The airport also currently has a good mix of locally based entrepreneurs who are willing to invest in the airport to expand the products and services and job opportunities within the community. With the proposed plan above, the airport should be able to meet forecasted needs easily for the next 20 years +/‐, depending on actual growth achieved, but what about beyond that period? And what if the airport is so successful in attracting new developments that it runs out of lands earlier than anticipated?

We feel that the Airport should have a bold long term strategy to deal with future airport growth. It is well positioned to do so given the availability of lands in the vicinity of the airport. Having such a context will not only aid the airport in its efforts to attract new tenants, but it will also act as a catalyst to keep and inspire the current tenants to further invest in the airport.

Figure 4‐11 presents our recommendations for a very long term plan for the Muskoka Airport. Key features of this long term plan include:

Building upon the development plan proposed for the first 20 years, which includes:

o Retention of the existing 6,000 ft Runway 18‐36,

o Construction of the new Runway 12‐30 to 2,800 ft, with protection for up to 3,400 ft with a possible extension to the east,

o Development of the east lands for mixed uses

o Development of the field lots for MRO and associated uses,

o Allocation of lands along Beaver Creek Road for landside commercial activities,

Retain the designation on the lands to the west of the airport (and east of Highway 11) for a mixed of industrial (which they are already zoned for) and aviation related uses;

Protecting for the possibility of realigning the Gravenhurst Parkway to be re‐routed through these new lands, so as to be the primary access to this future development, from both the north and the south;

Realigning the existing north‐south portion of the Gravenhurst Parkway further to the west and re‐purposing it to act as a service road to open up new lots by extending the current westside developments further to the south to front along the extended full parallel taxiway; and

Making provision for a possible future extension of Runway 12‐30 further to the west into the area vacated by realigning the Gravenhurst Parkway. This could provide a runway length in the vicinity of 4,500 ft +/‐ .

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure 4‐11: Very Long Term Development and Infrastructure Plan

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


5.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

This section looks at the Airport’s finances and forecasts the airport’s financial picture taking into account the forecast traffic, required new infrastructure, recommended land development and options for adjusting various charges and compares this to a status quo forecast with none of these elements.

5.1 STATUS QUO FINANCIAL FORECASTS

The Status Quo (Base Case) financial forecasts are based on the following assumptions:

No changes to the certification status of the airport;

Traffic forecasts as provided in Section 3.3 of this report (status quo) which affect ramp fees and the cost of fuel sold;

No changes to the structure of the aeronautical fee schedule; however rates will increase by 2% per year with the exception of aviation fuel which will increase 5% p.a. (as will the cost of fuel sold);

No changes to the current governance structure or staffing levels;

No new land sales or leases; [see comment below];

Operating expenditures increase at 2% p.a. except utilities, fuel (fleet and equipment), taxes, insurance, travel fleet, and cost of fuel sold that each increase at 5% p.a.;

Continued contributions to capital reserves funded through tax levies.

Given these assumptions, it is projected that the airport will suffer an operating loss of close to $ 312K in 2013, decreasing to approximately $ 260K by 2022 and to just over $ 130k by 2032. The improvement in the financial situation is based primarily on the mix of traffic (as the increase in traffic over this period is small) and related revenues associated with landing fees and fuel sales with larger aircraft.

Table 5‐1: Forecast Revenue and Expenses Under the Status Quo Scenario

2012 (budget)

2013 2017 2022 2027 2032

Revenues $1,834,700 $1,954,722 $2,454,168 $3,242,395 $4,266,982 $5,598,339

Expenses $2,158,506 $2,266,215 $2,750,150 $3,506,343 $4,478,597 $5,732,715

Operating Income Over Expenses

‐$323,806 ‐$311,493 ‐$295,982 ‐$263,848 ‐$211,616 ‐$134,376

As there is no land development in this scenario, the funding of the status quo capital plan remains the same as described earlier and would just involve maintenance and repairs to the current infrastructure. There would also be no land sales and land sales revenue or any lease revenue either.

Table 5‐2 shows the resulting cash flow under this status quo scenario. Under the assumption that the Airport receives FedNor funding for 1/3 of all capital improvements, the funding deficit required to be covered through taxes would average just over $ 600,000 annually over the first 5 years of the plan. In

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


the next 5 years, this funding requirement would drop to an average of about $ 400,000 per year, and thereafter nearly $ 280,000 for the next 5 years. The simple total of the funding shortfall over this 20 year period would be over $ 10,000,000 or an overall average of just over $500,000 per year.

Table 5‐2: Forecast Cash Flow and Capital Requirements Under the Status Quo Scenario

5.2 BUSINESS CASE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT

Development at the airport will result in additional traffic as described in Section 3.3. This will increase revenues in a couple of ways: there will be additional revenues associated with the land leases and AMC; and there will also be additional revenues from the additional traffic generated by the land developments, which will lead to increases in landing fees, fuel sales, parking charges, etc.

The table below summarizes the implications of the Medium and High traffic growth scenarios on the financial situation at the airport, based on the following additional assumptions:


No changes to the current governance structure;

Staffing levels are assumed to increase due to the expanded developments30;

Traffic forecasts as provided in Section 3.3 of this report which affect ramp revenues including fuel sales;

No changes to the structure of the aeronautical fee schedule; however rates will increase rates by 2% per year with the exception of aviation fuel which will increase 5% p.a. (as will the cost of fuel sold);

30For simplicity we have assumed that staffing levels increase, adding about $50,000 in additional staff costs in 2015, and thereafter this amount increases in line with inflation.

SIMPLE CASH FLOW 2012 2013-2017 2018-2022 2023-2027 2028-2032 TotalOpening Balance Reserve 1,538,706$ 1,538,706$ Retained Earning (Ops) -$ 1,522,563 1,392,752-$ 1,174,263-$ 835,112-$ 4,924,690-$

Revenue from Land Sales -$ Planned Capex (Maintenance) -$ 4,336,600-$ 806,694-$ 319,697-$ 1,966,594-$ 7,429,585-$ Projected Surplus / (Shortfall) 1,538,706$ 4,320,457-$ 2,199,446-$ 1,493,960-$ 2,801,706-$ 10,815,569-$

NPV (surplus/Shortfall) 6,448,198-$

864,091-$ 439,889-$ 298,792-$ 560,341-$

603,895-$ 391,487-$ 279,610-$ 442,345-$

Avg annual amount to be financed through taxes &/or other during 5 year period - if airport pays two thirds (other 1/3 - FedNor)

Avg annual amount to be financed through taxes &/or other during 5 year period - if airport pays 100%

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Current base land lease rates escalated at CPI (use 2% p.a.);

Current AMC land lease rates escalated at CPI (use 2% p.a.);

Land development – 35 acre development (option B‐R) including taxiways, parallel runway and paving the grass runway at a total cost of $7 million; however with a phased approach, only $6.5 M is spent in the 20 year planning period;

Land take‐up of 35 available acres is per phasing plan in earlier section, with:

o 25 acres total developed under a High Case scenario; and

o 15 acres developed under a Medium Case scenario (over 20 years).

Developed land is assumed to be 50% sold and 50% leased with the exception of the initial 5 acres in 2014 which is assumed to be all sold;

Operating expenditures increase at 2% p.a. except utilities, fuel (fleet and equipment), taxes, insurance, travel fleet, and cost of fuel sold that each increase at 5% p.a.;

No additional staff are required due to land development or infrastructure expansion;

The operating expenses associated with materials and equipment, fuel (fleet and equipment), building maintenance and supplies, grounds maintenance and supplies, and equipment repair do increase with land development and the increase is based on two‐thirds of the increases associated with airfield area:

o Medium case: 1.5% growth in 2017 and 18% growth in 2022;

o High case: 15% growth in 2017, 3.9% in 2022, 3.7% in 2027, and 1.3% in 2032.

The following two tables below show the operating financials for the period 2013 through 2032, in five year increments (including land lease revenues but excluding land sales revenues).

Table 5‐3 shows that under the medium growth scenario with no major changes to current rates that the operating deficit would reduce over time to the point that around 2029/30, the airport could achieve an operating surplus, and thereafter, this surplus would increase over time, reaching about $ 70,000 in 2032 vs a loss of about $ 325,000 in 2012.

Under the high growth scenario, illustrated in Figure 5‐4, the deficit is shown to decrease much faster so that breakeven is potentially achieved in about 2021 with a surplus of over $ 330,000 by 2027 and reaching over $ 600,000 by 2032.

Both of these scenarios clearly show the benefits in developing the additional lands due to not only the additional revenues that this would generate from land leases, but as well the additional traffic that would also be generated as a result.

The next two tables below show a summary of cash flows during the 20 year planning period under both the Medium and High growth scenarios. As presented earlier, the capital estimates are shown under two sets of assumptions: that the District has to pay 100% of all capital costs, or; that the District is responsible for two‐thirds of the capital funding, with the remaining one‐third being funded through government programs (e.g., FedNor).

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Table 5‐3: Forecast Revenues and Expenses for the Medium Growth Scenario

2012 (budget)

2013 2017 2022 2027 2032

Revenues (incl asset sales)

$1,834,700 $1,981,637 $2,654,202 $4,123,047 $5,113,787 $6,658,768

Expenses $2,158,506 $2,287,996 $2,948,181 $3,996,762 $5,156,822 $6,591,380

Operating Income Over Expenses (excl asset sales)

‐$323,806 ‐$306,359 ‐$293,979 ‐$145,180 ‐$43,046 $67,389

Table 5‐4: Forecast Revenues and Expenses for the High Growth Scenario

2012 (budget)

2013 2017 2022 2027 2032


$1,834,700 $2,055,618 $3,385,659 $5,033,349 $7,087,766 $9,403,652

Expenses $2,158,506 $2,347,162 $3,394,211 $4,966,227 $6,756,724 $8,789,548

Operating Income Over Expenses (excl asset sales)

‐$323,806 ‐$291,544 ‐$172,468 $67,122 $330,342 $614,104

Per Table 5‐5, during the first five years of the development plan (2013‐2017), over $ 700,000 is required in tax levies each year to cover capital expenditures and operating losses, even with the grants from FedNor to cover 1/3 of the capital costs. This is due to the high costs incurred during this period for the land development and the major runway overlay. This shortfall remains at this same level during the next 5 year period (2018‐2022) at just over $ 700,000 per year, before dropping significantly to just over $ 100,000 per year in the next 5 year period (2023‐2027). The funding shortfall rises again in the last 5 year period as a number of major maintenance items are necessary at that time.

Recall from the status quo discussion that the simple total of the funding shortfall over the 20 year planning period was just under $ 11,000,000. In this case, the total funding shortfall is just over $ 13,000,000 over the 20 year planning period. The NPV of this cumulative loss is about $ 8.5M vs $ 6.5M for the status quo. This is primarily due to the fact that while land is developed to stimulate growth in traffic and growth in revenues (cumulative loss is only $ 3.0M vs $ 4.5M in status quo), the land is actually being sold or leased at less than the cost to actually develop it. The additional revenues that are generated as a consequence of the additional traffic fail to make up the difference.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Table 5‐5: Forecast Cash Flows and Capital Funding Requirements for the Medium Growth Scenario

Table 5‐6 shows the projected cash flows for the High Growth Scenario. In this case, the funding shortfall is higher in the first 5 years of the development plan, at over $ 900,000 required per year. However, the funding shortfall drops significantly to about $ 290,000 per year in the second 5 year period. After that, between land sales and improved revenues from operations, the airport’s funding shortfall would drop to an average of only $ 50,000 ‐ $ 100,000 annually for the next 10 years.

The simple total of the funding shortfall in this case is just under $ 10,000,000, which is a reasonable improvement over the status quo at just under $ 11,000,000 or the medium case at about $ 13,000,000. This funding shortfall is reduced significantly due to the large amount of retained earnings from operations in this case ($ 2.2M vs a loss of $ 3.0M in the medium case) as well as the land sales, now at some $ 1.3 M. These positive changes easily make up for the additional costs of the capital plan ($ 7.4M in this case vs $ 5.1M in the medium case). The NPV of the cumulative loss in this case is estimated at about $ 7.3M vs $ 8.5M for the medium case or $ 6.5M for the status quo.

The above financial analysis clearly shows that additional land development at the airport can contribute to improved revenues through additional land sales and lease revenues, as well as the stimulation in traffic that would result. However, to achieve the best results, the lands must be priced appropriately and the airport needs to be aggressive in the development as modest levels of development do not produce the same improvements as more substantial levels.

SIMPLE CASH FLOW 2012 2013-2017 2018-2022 2023-2027 2028-2032 TotalsOpening Balance Reserve 1,538,706$ 1,538,706$ Retained Earning (Ops) -$ 1,508,064 1,080,684-$ 437,537-$ 106,052$ 2,920,234-$ Revenue from Land Sales 386,155$ 442,004$ -$ -$ 828,159$ Planned Capex (Development/Capacity) 1,499,182-$ 3,653,313-$ $0 -$ 5,152,496-$ Planned Capex (Maintenance) 4,336,600-$ 806,694-$ 319,697-$ -$1,966,594 7,429,585-$ Projected Surplus / (Shortfall) 1,538,706$ 5,418,986-$ 5,098,688-$ 757,234-$ 1,860,542-$ 13,135,450-$

NPV (Surplus / Shortfall) 8,656,543-$

1,083,797-$ 1,019,738-$ 151,447-$ 372,108-$

733,650-$ 752,137-$ 132,265-$ 254,113-$



PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Table 5‐6: Forecast Cash Flows and Capital Funding Requirements for the High Growth Scenario

5.3 ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATE LAND VALUES AND LEASE RATES

Now let’s look at the pricing of land sales and the associated leasing rates, as we had indicated in a previous section that we felt that the value of airport lands was being underestimated by recent appraisals. This was because they did not consider sufficient factors in their analysis in that they did not necessarily compare apples to apples in their “comparison” approach and they completely avoided the cost based side. As well, the implications of under pricing the lands became clearly evident in the above scenario analysis where in the medium growth scenario, the airport’s funding deficit actually increases with development as the lands are being sold/priced at below the cost of developing them.

Based on the three appraisals reviewed from 2010, the weighted average sales price per square meter is $18.71, or $75,717 per acre.

As shown in Table 5‐7 below, the full cost (versus phased cost) to develop the various airport lands as identified in the development options section is estimated at about $ 140,000 ‐ $ 150,000 per acre if we take into account the full costs of the land preparation including the cost of adding the taxiway access to the lots. If we exclude the cost of the taxiway access to the developments, then the price per acre drops to under about $ 85,000. This latter figure should be the lowest sale price charged to recover the costs. The former figure should be the highest charged. In fact, most airports will choose a number somewhere in between as they know they will recover some of the money through aircraft movements, etc., as was demonstrated with the financial comparisons between the Medium Growth and High Growth scenarios.

These “land cost” numbers are clearly much higher than the typical $ 75,000 “appraised values”, and it makes absolutely no sense to sell land at less than it would cost to develop. While it is important to remember that developing the lands at the airport will have other direct impacts such as retaining an existing anchor tenant or two who could move to another airport if expansion at Muskoka was not an option; increased fuel sales and landing fees due to additional traffic; and increased employment and

SIMPLE CASH FLOW 2012 2013-2017 2018-2022 2023-2027 2028-2032 Totals

Opening Balance Reserve 1,538,706$ 1,538,706$

Retained Earning (Ops) -$ -$ 1,210,168 210,566-$ 1,117,324$ 2,529,481$ 2,226,070$ Revenue from Land Sales -$ 550,071$ 260,924$ 235,360$ 254,762$ 1,301,117$ Planned Capex (Development/Capacity) -$ 3,632,210-$ 1,378,423-$ 1,243,374-$ 1,211,282-$ 7,465,289-$ Planned Capex (Maintenance) -$ 4,336,600-$ 806,694-$ 319,697-$ 1,966,594-$ 7,429,585-$

Projected Surplus / (Shortfall) 1,538,706$ 7,090,201-$ 2,134,759-$ 210,387-$ 393,632-$ 9,828,980-$

NPV (Surplus / (Shortfall) 7,353,954-$

1,418,040-$ 426,952-$ 42,077-$ 78,726-$

939,912-$ 295,845-$ 51,707$ 111,946$



PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


resulting spin‐off effects in the District, even considering these other effects, it would still make no sense to sell the land at less than cost.

Table 5‐7: Comparison of Appraised Land Values vs Developed Cost Based Land Values

Development Option A‐R Development Option B‐R

(2013 dollars) (Eastside Lots – 25 acres) (Eastside Lots and Field

Lots – 35 acres)

Total Cost (excl. paving the grass runway but incl. taxiway work)

$3,515,000 $5,242,000

per acre $140,600 $149,771

Total Cost (excl. paving the grass runway & excl. taxiway work)

$2,090,000 $2,999,000

per acre $83,600 $85,686

Sell at $18.71 / m2 ($75,717 / acre) $1,892,925 $2,650,095

Lease at $0.91 / m2 / yr ‐ annual revenue $92,066 $128,892

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS – LAND RATES

Another key method to value land is to compare to other similar or competitor airports. In the earlier financial section we had provided rates for the Lake Simcoe Airport, which is the closest key competitor airport. Unfortunately, similar information could not be obtained from the other airports. Comparing with the Lake Simcoe rates we find the following:

Lake Simcoe has a Base Lease Rate of $1.49/m2 which is 64% higher than Muskoka’s current base lease rate of $0.91/m2;

Even choosing a Base Lease Rate of $1.20/m2, which is half way between current rate and Lake Simcoe’s, could result in about 32% more land revenue than with the current base lease rate of $0.91/m2;

At a base lease rate of $ 1.49/m2, the imputed land value would be about $121K per acre. This is mid way in the range suggested above for a cost based approach to land values ($85k ‐ $ 150k);

At a base lease rate of $ 1.20/m2, (or mid way between the Lake Simcoe rate and the current Muskoka rate) the imputed land value would be close to $ 100K per acre;

Based on the above, we suggest that to remain competitive, consideration be given to choosing a land value rate of about 10% less than Lake Simcoe, which would work out to about $ 110k per acre, or about $ 1.35/m2.

5.4 BUSINESS CASE FOR INCREASING LAND RATES AND OTHER CHARGES

Clearly, based on the above financial analysis, there is room to improve the airport’s financial situation even more than noted through investigation of a better business plan and an improvement in the rates charged to users and tenants. This is discussed further below.

Based on the discussions above we clearly need to raise the land rates, both for land sales and associated lease rates. As well, a comparison with the nearest competitor, and the only one where we could get detailed rate information from (Lake Simcoe Airport), clearly shows that rates at Muskoka can be raised. These include higher AMC rates, Development Service and Permit fees, etc.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


The proposed financial forecasts for this study are based on the following assumptions:


No changes to the current governance structure;


Medium traffic growth (see section 3.3);

Implementation of Development Plan B‐R (phased) including taxiways, parallel runway and paving the grass runway at a cost of $7M ($6.5M within planning period);

Land take‐up of 35 available acres is assumed to be 15 acres during the planning period;

Land‐take up is assumed to be 100% sold in year 2014,; with remaining parcels 50% sold, 50% leased in years 2019, and 2022;

Increase in land sales rates by 47% to $111,304 / acre (2013$);

Increase land lease rates by 47% to $1.34/m2 (Lake Simcoe’s rates less 10%) escalated by 2% p.a. with these increases only applied to new leases32;

Increase AMC by 21% to $0.97 / m2 (Lake Simcoe’s rates less 10%), escalated by 2% p.a.;

A new one‐time Development Service Fee of $0.40/ft2 (building area) to be drawn upon by the Airport to review the development application. This is equivalent to $7,841/acre. Unused portions of fee to be returned to the tenant. Assume 50% of the fee will be used. Building area assumed to be 45% of land area. Fees waived on development taking place in 2014;

A new one‐time Airport Development Permit Fee of $0.90/ft2 (building area) to be drawn upon by the Airport to review the development permit submission and provide periodic site review as required. This is equivalent to $17,642/acre. Unused portions of fee returned to the tenant. Assume 50% of the fee will be used. Building area assumed to be 45% of land area. Fees waived on development taking place in 2014;

A new one‐time Airport Development Levy of $4.64/ft2 (building area) excluding space used for storage of aircraft. Total building area assumed to be 45% of land area, however 90% of that is assumed to be for aircraft storage. Rate therefore applies only to 980 ft2 per acre sold or leased;

Reduction in exemptions for landing fees (from 5 tonnes to 3 tonnes for based aircraft, and from 3 tonnes to 1 tonne for visiting aircraft; no other changes to the aeronautical rate structure;

Aeronautical fee schedules (rates) will increase rates by 2% per year with the exception of aviation fuel which will increase 5% p.a. (as will the cost of fuel sold);

Ramp fee revenues increase with traffic and with CPI rate increases;

31 For simplicity we have assumed that staffing levels increase, adding about $50,000 in additional staff costs in 2015, and thereafter this amount increases in line with inflation. We have kept this assumption constant across all expanded development scenarios. 32 As existing leases come up for renewal, these should be re‐negotiated to the new rates. However, for simplicity, these new rates have not been applied to leases that will come up for renewal, making the analysis conservative.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Fuel revenues increase with traffic plus a 5% rate increase per year;

Operating expenditures increase at 2% p.a. except utilities, fuel (fleet and equipment), taxes, insurance, travel fleet, and cost of fuel sold that each increase at 5% p.a.

The operating expenses associated with materials and equipment, fuel (fleet and equipment), building maintenance and supplies, grounds maintenance and supplies, and equipment repair do increase with land development and the increase is based on two‐thirds of the increases associated with airfield area: 1.5% growth in 2017 and 18% growth in 2022;

In the case where the District should choose to move to an Airport Commission, costs associated with setting up a Commission (e.g., legal) are assumed to be offset by increased revenue due to additional marketing and more aggressive revenue targets.

Table 5‐8 shows the forecast revenues and expenses for this case with increased rates but combined with only the Medium Growth Scenario. With this combination of increased rates, a breakeven is achieved on operating income in 2021/22. By comparison, in the Medium Growth scenario with current rates, breakeven was not achieved until 2029/30.

Table 5‐8: Forecast Revenues and Expenses with an Increased Rate Package Medium Growth Scenario

2012 (budget)

2013 2017 2022 2027 2032


$1,834,700 $2,030,413 $2,710,066 $4,434,429 $5,200,753 $6,755,076

Expenses $2,158,506 $2,288,396 $2,948,614 $3,997,240 $5,157,350 $6,591,963

Income (excl sale of assets & dev. Levy)

‐$323,806 ‐$257,983 ‐$238,608 $21,828 $43,403 $138,435

Table 5‐9: Forecast Cash Flows and Capital Funding Requirements for the High Growth Scenario

SIMPLE CASH FLOW 2012 2013-2017 2018-2022 2023-2027 2028-2032 TotalsOpening Balance Reserve 1,538,706$ 1,538,706$ Retained Earning (Ops) -$ 1,243,995 601,725-$ 27,683-$ 565,479$ 1,307,924-$ Revenue from Land Sales 567,650$ 649,749$ -$ -$ 1,217,399$ Revenue from Development Levy -$ 26,549$ -$ -$ 26,549$ Planned Capex (Development/Capacity) 1,499,182-$ 3,653,313-$ $0 -$ 5,152,495-$ Planned Capex (Maintenance) 4,336,600-$ 806,694-$ 319,697-$ -$1,966,594 7,429,585-$

Projected Surplus / (Shortfall) 1,538,706$ 4,973,421-$ 4,385,434-$ 347,380-$ 1,401,114-$ 11,107,350-$


994,684-$ 877,087-$ 69,476-$ 280,223-$

644,537-$ 609,486-$ 50,294-$ 162,227-$



PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Table 5‐9 shows the simple cash flows over the 20 year period for this proposed package of rates. The simple funding shortfall in this case is over $ 600,000 for the first 10 years, dropping to about $ 50,000 for the next five, and then rising again to approach $ 160,000 in the last 5. The total funding shortfall over the 20 years is about $ 11,000,000 with an NPV of this shortfall at about $ 7.5M.

Table 5‐10 summarises a comparison over all of financial scenarios modelled above. We should note that the basic CAPEX plan for maintaining the existing facilities at the airport is the same in all of the options (at about $ 7.4M as a simple addition of the inflated costs over the 20 years). This includes the runway overlays, roof replacements, building structure maintaining, HVAC, lighting upgrades, etc. As well, the value of the initial reserve at the start of 2013 is also the same across all scenarios at about $ 1.5M.

Table 5‐10: Comparison of Financial Cash Flow Results across Scenarios

In the status quo case, the large cumulative operating loss over the 20 year period of about $ 5.0M, combined with the $ 7.4M CAPEX plan to maintain current facilities results in a cumulative cash shortfall of close to $ 11 M. The NPV of this shortfall, however, is only about $ 6.5M. In the Medium Growth case, combined with maintaining current rates, operating income improves to a loss of only $ 3.0 M as a result of additional land leases and increased traffic. IN this case land sales revenues of over $ 800,000 are achieved. However, these improvements are not enough to pay for the expansionary CAPEX associated with the land development and capacity increases (at over $ 5 M), so that the funding shortfall over the 20 year period actually increases to about $ 13.0M (or an NPV of $ 8.6M).

In the High Growth Scenario (still with current rates), the operating income improves significantly due to higher activity at the airport resulting from more development (25 acres vs 15) and the associated spin‐offs in traffic and revenues. In this scenario, the airport actually achieves a cumulative operating surplus of over $ 2.2 M over the 20 year period. The airport also receives over $ 1.3 M in land sales. But even together all of the above improvements are still not enough to even pay for the expanded facilities. In this case, the total funding shortfall over the 20 years drops to just under $ 10 M, which is a $ 1 M improvement over the Status Quo and a $ 3.2 M improvement over the Medium Growth scenario (with NPV now of about $ 7.3M).

Looking at the last column in Table 5‐10, we see the effects of the increased rates with the Medium Growth scenario. Compared to the Medium Growth with current rates, we see the operating income

COMPARISON Status Quo Medium Growth High Growth Medium GrowthBase Rates Base rates Base rates Revised rates

(Cumulative over 20 years)Opening Reserve in 2012 1,538,706$ 1,538,706$ 1,538,706$ 1,538,706$ Retained Earning (Ops) 4,924,690-$ 2,920,234-$ 2,226,070$ 1,307,924-$ Revenue from Land Sales 828,159$ 1,301,117$ 1,217,399$

Revenue from Development Levy 26,549$ Planned Capex (Development/Capacity) 5,152,496-$ 7,465,289-$ 5,152,495-$ Planned Capex (Maintenance) 7,429,585-$ 7,429,585-$ 7,429,585-$ 7,429,585-$

Projected Surplus / (Shortfall) 10,815,569-$ 13,135,450-$ 9,828,980-$ 11,107,350-$

NPV (Surplus / (Shortfall) 6,448,198-$ 8,656,543-$ 7,353,954-$ 7,483,970-$

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


improves to a net loss of only just over $ 1.3M vs a cumulative loss of over $ 3.0M. We also see a 50% increase in land sales and associated fees over the current pricing case. Together these rate and fee increases are able to reduce the cumulative funding shortfall by some $ 2 M over the Medium case with the current rates (to about $ 11.0M). But these higher rates are not as effective at minimizing the funding shortfall as is the case with more aggressive development as seen in the high growth scenario (where the funding shortfall was just under $ 10 M. In this medium case with the increased rates, the NPV is just under $ 7.5M).

While we have not modelled a High Growth Scenario with increased fees, it is quite easy to extrapolate that such a scenario would result in across the board improvements in all of the numbers in Table 5‐10. We project that under such as scenario, the total funding shortfall over the 20 year period analyzed could drop to in the range of $ 7 M to $ 8 M and the NPV would be somewhere between $ 6.0M and $ 6.5M.

So what can we learn from the above financial analyses?

We suggest the following lessons from the above:

Regardless of the financial scenario, the airport will need to continue to contribute in the range of an average of about $ 500,000 per year into the airport reserve fund, much as it has been doing in past years;

Considering only funding shortfalls for the airport, the status quo, whereby no money is invested in expanding the airport facilities, but money is spent on maintaining those already existing, is a feasible option, as this results in the lowest overall NPV of the scenarios actually modelled, and would be similar to the projected best case NPV with high growth rates and increased land sale prices;

Investing in only modest expansion of the airport without adjusting current rates (many of which are too low in absolute terms, but also too low in comparative terms with other airports), does not appear to be as attractive as the status quo.

Major investments in additional facilities at the airport, combined with aggressive land development and increases in key fees such as land sales, land leases, among others, can pay large dividends and in the end more than pay for themselves, as illustrated with the projected NPV of a High Growth case with increased fees;

Aggressive land development and marketing, both of which can attract additional traffic to the airport, combined with appropriate increases in fees charged across all aspects of the airport’s operations, can result in achieving airport operating surpluses as early as 2020, depending on the scenario;

Any of the “investment” related options, would pay additional dividends to the community in terms of the economic impacts of the associated investments, whereas a status quo option would forgo the potentially significant economic spin‐off impacts of these investments, both on an initial investment basis, as well as continued contributions due to operations;

A more aggressive land sale policy should be considered as a means of lowering the initial capital investment shortfalls, as once many of these land development investments are well underway, the airport should be in position to generate annual operating surpluses (2020 +/‐).

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


6.0 BUSINESS PLAN

This section provides a brief outline of a proposed business plan for the airport, based on our findings from the above analyses, with a focus on Strategic Direction, An Action Plan, Marketing and a Financial Plan.

6.1 STRATEGIC DIRECTION

MISSION / AIRPORT ROLE

The Muskoka Airport is a commercial General Aviation (GA) airport that promotes and supports the social and economic needs of the District of Muskoka.

VISION

The long‐term vision of the airport is that it will continue to operate as a commercial entity which is developed as an economic development tool that supports the social and business needs of Muskoka, in an efficient and financially prudent manner.

AIRPORT OPERATOR’S ROLE

The mission or role of the District as the airport owner and operator is to:

Manage and operate the airport in a safe, secure and financially responsible manner; and

Advance economic and community development.

VALUES

The values outlined in the 2006 Strategic Business Plan continue to be valid:

Ensuring safety

Excellence in customer service

Providing the community with a transportation link and an aviation business node

An effective and cost efficient operation

Open and effective communication

Positive relationships and teamwork

Integrity, accountability and dedication

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


OBJECTIVES AND GOALS

OBJECTIVE GOALS

To ensure that the airport facilities and equipment continue to be maintained to TC regulatory standards and that all regulations are met and the Airport retains its certification.

continue to have successful TC inspections and audits

To minimize the financial burden on the taxpayers. Maximize operating revenues

Minimize operating costs

Secure external capital funding

Reduce tax levy

Reduce lengthy decision making processes

To foster aviation related business growth and development.

Expand amount of occupied land through expansion by existing tenants and attracting new complementary aviation tenants

To support tourism growth in Region. Enhance promotion of airport

Increase numbers of itinerant GA related to tourism

Provide attractive facilities to foster new itinerant traffic

Create more jobs in Region Develop additional airport lands to attract new aviation related business by aggressively marketing the airport

KEY SUCCESS FACTORS

Development ready land to accommodate growth from existing and new tenants;

Full‐FBO service;

Strong Airport “champion” and proactive management with entrepreneurial spirit; Strong commercial focus with an emphasis on maximizing non‐aeronautical revenues;

Strong marketing efforts to identify and chase new opportunities;

Strong customer service focus;

Effective links to the community with strong community support;

Accountability and empowerment of airport management;

Effective decision making processes; and

Effective communication and collaboration with partners including Muskoka Tourism, Economic Development, Chamber of Commerce, aircraft operators and other key stakeholders;

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


6.2 MARKETING

TARGET MARKET

The airport should focus its marketing efforts on the following group, in priority order:

Existing tenants who have plans for expansion. It is anticipated that existing tenants have a demand for approximately 5 acres of land (large hangars);

Aviation businesses that could provide services that complement those provided by existing tenants (med‐large hangars);

Corporate aircraft owners that will be displaced from the Greater Toronto Area (Pearson, Buttonville, Toronto City Centre) (small‐med hangars);

Private aircraft owners that will be displaced from the Greater Toronto Area (T‐hangars);

New flight school to be based at the airport (office, classroom and hangar space);

Itinerant GA (private / recreational) (fuel sales).

MARKETING MIX / FIVE P’S

Products and Services – The Muskoka airport offers its customers superior facilities and services including:

o Airfield infrastructure – long runway, good navaids, precision approaches

o Full‐serve fuel (AvGas and Jet)

o Ground handling and catering

o Tie‐downs and hangars

o Maintenance – airframe and powerplant maintenance, as well as avionics, aircraft painting

o Efficient ground transportation service including rental cars (available upon advance request)

o Food service at a nearby restaurant

o Proximity to GTA with excellent road network

o Many tourism related amenities (hotels, B&B, attractions,, eco and wildnerness tours (Algonquin Park)

Pricing

o Competitive rate structure

o Market rate pricing on land

o Land sales policy (very attractive to prospective tenants)

Place – when and where to market to target audience; mechanism through which services are provided to the customer

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Promotion – airport should employ a variety of methods to aggressively market available land, and to promote the airport, including:

o Advertising in appropriate trade magazines

o Identifying key customers and contacting each directly

o Attending appropriate conferences attended by target audiences

o Joint marketing efforts with Tourism Muskoka, local tourism operators, Chambers of Commerce, PED,

People – Develop new and enhance existing working relationships with Tourism Muskoka, Chambers of Commerce, local tour operators, COPA, CBAA, and potential federal funding partners

AIRPORT BRANDING

A brand or positioning statement defines what the brand stands for. It should identify what sets the organization apart, and why the organization is unique. Competitors should not be able to simply substitute their name for yours. The brand identity is a set of identifiers such as logos.

While the Muskoka Airport has a brand identifier in its logo (shown at right) that somewhat reflects aviation as shown in the graphic of a pilot, within a natural setting, and with the identifier “The Little Norway Memorial”, the airport does not appear to have a strong brand statement (or tag line), though “A Proud Legacy” does show up in their material, but clearly separate from the logo.

Examples of brand messages (tag lines), and logos at other airports include:

Campbell River Airport (YBL) – Minutes from Your True Nature

Penticton Regional Airport – Gateway to the South Okanagan

Lake Simcoe – Central Ontario’s Best Connection

Parry Sound Airport – the Natural Place to Land

Oshawa Airport – Your Aviation Gateway to the City of Oshawa and the Region of Durham

It is recommended that the airport develop a strong brand message focused on the target audience and/or the unique aspects of tourism in Muskoka. The current message that hints at the “the home of the Little Norway Memorial” is interesting and should be used in more of the airport’s marketing, but a stronger brand could also be pursued. Something like “A Full Service Gateway to Algonquin Park”, or “Gateway to Muskoka Cottage Country” might also complement the Region’s tourism focus. The intent here is not to necessarily suggest the final product but to recommend that stronger brand message be developed.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


6.3 ACTION PLAN

SHORT-TERM (2013)

Approve development plan B‐R;

Increase land lease and sales rates as well as the AMC;

Confirm development intent of existing tenants and negotiate agreements

Acquire land to the east to permit grass runway relocation

MEDIUM TERM (2014-2018)

Move to an Airport Commission operating structure;

Reduce landing fee exemptions from 5 tonnes to 3 tonnes for based aircraft, and from 3 tonnes to 1 tonne for visiting aircraft

Approve a new one‐time development service fee similar to (but slightly less than) Lake Simcoe’s (waived for Phase 1 i.e., implement before 2019;

Approve a new one‐time airport development permit fee similar to (but slightly less than) Lake Simcoe’s (waived for Phase 1 i.e., implement before 2019);

Approve a new one‐time airport development levy similar to (but slightly less than) Lake Simcoe’s (waive for Phase 1 i.e., implement before 2019)

Develop comprehensive marketing program, including marketing materials (brand message, logo, print materials etc.), key messages, advertising plan,

Implement land development program on a phased approach i.e., line up customers prior to developing the land

6.4 FINANCIAL FORECASTS

In Section 5 it is demonstrated that the most positive financial scenario would be to aggressively develop and market new commercial lands. To be conservative however, the financial forecasts are based on a medium development and traffic scenario. Additional revenues can be expected to be achieved through a more aggressive land development timeline, complemented by aggressive marketing efforts. The financial forecasts include the following detailed assumptions:


No changes to the current ownership structure however a move to an Airport Commission as the operator33;


33 Costs to implement a Commission structure (particularly legal costs) are considered to be offset by incremental revenue not already built into the financial model 34For simplicity we have assumed that staffing levels increase, adding about $50,000 in additional staff costs in 2015, and thereafter this amount increases in line with inflation. We have kept this assumption constant across all expanded development scenarios.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Medium traffic growth (see section 3.3);

Implementation of Development Plan B‐R (phased) including taxiways, parallel runway and paving the grass runway at a cost of $7M ($6.5M within planning period);

Land take‐up of 35 available acres is assumed to be 15 acres during the planning period

Land‐take up is assumed to be 100% sold in year 2014,; with remaining parcels 50% sold, 50% leased in years 2019, and 2022

Increase in land sales rates by 47% to $111,304 / acre (2013$)

Increase land lease rates by 47% to $1.34/m2 (Lake Simcoe’s rates less 10%) escalated by 2% p.a.;

Increase AMC by 21% to $0.97 / m2 (Lake Simcoe’s rates less 10%), escalated by 2% p.a.;

A new one‐time Development Service Fee of $0.40/ft2 (building area) to be drawn upon by the Airport to review the development application. This is equivalent to $7,841/acre. Unused portions of fee to be returned to the tenant. Assume 50% of the fee will be used. Building area assumed to be 45% of land area. Fees waived on development taking place in 2014

A new one‐time Airport Development Permit Fee of $0.90/ft2 (building area) to be drawn upon by the Airport to review the development permit submission and provide periodic site review as required. This is equivalent to $17,642/acre. Unused portions of fee returned to the tenant. Assume 50% of the fee will be used. Building area assumed to be 45% of land area. Fees waived on development taking place in 2014;

A new one‐time Airport Development Levy of $4.64/ft2 (building area) excluding space used for storage of aircraft. Total building area assumed to be 45% of land area, however 90% of that is assumed to be for aircraft storage. Rate therefore applies only to 980 ft2 per acre sold or leased.

Reduction in exemptions for landing fees (from 5 tonnes to 3 tonnes for based aircraft, and from 3 tonnes to 1 tonne for visiting aircraft; no other changes to the aeronautical rate structure

Aeronautical fee schedules (rates) will increase rates by 2% per year with the exception of aviation fuel which will increase 5% p.a. (as will the cost of fuel sold);

Ramp fee revenues increase with traffic and with CPI rate increases;

Fuel revenues increase with traffic plus a 5% rate increase per year;

Operating expenditures increase at 2% p.a. except utilities, fuel (fleet and equipment), taxes, insurance, travel fleet, and cost of fuel sold that each increase at 5% p.a.

The operating expenses associated with materials and equipment, fuel (fleet and equipment), building maintenance and supplies, grounds maintenance and supplies, and equipment repair do increase with land development and the increase is based on two‐thirds of the increases associated with airfield area: 1.5% growth in 2017 and 18% growth in 2022;

Costs associated with setting up a Commission (e.g., legal) are assumed to be offset by increased revenue due to additional marketing and more aggressive revenue targets.

Given these assumptions, the airport will begin to see an operating profit in 2021/22.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


2012 (budget)

2013 2017 2022 2027 2032


$1,834,700 $2,030,413 $2,710,066 $4,434,429 $5,200,753 $6,755,076

Expenses $2,158,506 $2,288,396 $2,948,614 $3,997,240 $5,157,350 $6,591,963

Income (excl sale of assets & dev. Levy)

‐$323,806 ‐$257,983 ‐$238,608 $21,828 $43,403 $138,435

The table below shows a summary of cash flows during the planning period. Assuming that the District is responsible for two‐thirds of the capital funding, with the remaining one‐third being funded through government programs (e.g., FedNor), during the first ten years of the development plan, slightly over $600,000 is required in tax levies each year to cover capital expenditures and operating losses; however this drops significantly in the next five year period and continues at much lower levels.

SIMPLE CASH FLOW 2012 2013-2017 2018-2022 2023-2027 2028-2032 TotalsOpening Balance Reserve 1,538,706$ 1,538,706$ Retained Earning (Ops) -$ 1,243,995 601,725-$ 27,683-$ 565,479$ 1,307,924-$ Revenue from Land Sales 567,650$ 649,749$ -$ -$ 1,217,399$ Revenue from Development Levy -$ 26,549$ -$ -$ 26,549$ Planned Capex (Development/Capacity) 1,499,182-$ 3,653,313-$ $0 -$ 5,152,495-$ Planned Capex (Maintenance) 4,336,600-$ 806,694-$ 319,697-$ -$1,966,594 7,429,585-$

Projected Surplus / (Shortfall) 1,538,706$ 4,973,421-$ 4,385,434-$ 347,380-$ 1,401,114-$ 11,107,350-$


994,684-$ 877,087-$ 69,476-$ 280,223-$

644,537-$ 609,486-$ 50,294-$ 162,227-$



PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


7.0 GOVERNANCE

Airport ownership and operating models vary. The particular models are a result of both history and choice. The key influencing factors are:

The degree of financial self‐sufficiency. Generally, governments do not like to provide capital or operating financial subsidies without having a significant say in how the airport is managed. Accordingly more of the smaller airports that are not self‐sufficient (which is the greatest portion) tend to be government operated and more of the larger airports have varying degrees of autonomy.

Degree of autonomy. There is a broad range of ownership models and the degree of autonomy in decision making is equally broad. Autonomy tends to be closely linked to financial self‐sufficiency.

Labour practices. There can be significant differences in public sector and private sector labour practices, and this can influence the ownership model.

The broad categories of airport operation can be thought of as:

Local Government ownership and operation

o Regional / District owns and operates (current situation)

o Individual municipality owns and operates

Local Government owns and an independent not‐for‐profit organization operates

o Airport Commission

o Airport Authority

Local Government owns and private sector operates

Private sector owns and operates

In Ontario and in Canada, there terms “Authority”, “Commission” and “Society” are used loosely as there are many permutations and combinations within each of the basic models depending on how they were established, and the level of delegation given to the operator.

Based on a recent study35 done for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, there are some 84 Municipal Airports in Ontario. These are distributed geographically as follows:

46 in the South; and

38 in the north.

These various municipal airports are operated by a variety of models, as listed above. The distribution of the operating models used at these Ontario municipal airports is illustrated in the graph below. Per this data, some 46 of these airports, or 55%, are currently operated by the municipalities that own them. An additional 18, or 21%, are operated by Airport Commissions or Airport Authorities. The remaining 20, or

35 Final Report, Ontario Municipal Airports Data Collection Study, 2011 Update, Leigh Fisher Management Consultants.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


24%, are operated by private entities36. The proportion of airports operated by either Airport Commissions/Authorities or the private sector is higher in the south than it is in the north (52% vs 37%).

Source: Final Report, Ontario Municipal Airports Data Collection Study, 2011 Update, Leigh Fisher Management Consultants

7.1 ALTERNATIVE GOVERNANCE MODELS

CURRENT GOVERNANCE MODEL – DISTRICT OWNED AND OPERATED

The airport was transferred to the District in 1996 as part of the federal government’s National Airports Policy. At the time, it was recognized by Council that the airport was important to Muskoka’s economy, and an essential link in Muskoka’s transportation infrastructure. It was also recognized that there was a “community of interest” in the Airport which affected more than one municipality. In July 2005, Muskoka District Council re‐confirmed its commitment to retain ownership and operation of the airport as a regional asset following the expiration of the transfer agreement with Transport Canada in October 2006.

The District of Muskoka, a regional municipality within whose boundaries are located the Towns of Bracebridge, Gravenhurst, Huntsville, and the Townships of Georgian Bay, Muskoka Lakes and Lake of Bays, owns the Airport. The airport is operated (managed) within the Planning and Economic Development (PED) department of the District government. The District is responsible for operating, marketing and developing the airport. This can be referred to as the Regional or District Model.

36 In many cases, small airports with little traffic are operated on behalf of the municipality by the local flying club, especially when they are the most frequent user.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Airport staff report through the Commissioner of PED who reports to the District Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). For airport matters, the CAO and the Commissioner of PED report to District Council through the Planning and Economic Development Committee. This PED Committee also receives advice from a 13 member Airport Advisory Committee chaired by a District Councillor and comprising other District Councillors, and interested community members including commercial tenants, local pilots, among others.

The airport budget (operating and capital) is prepared by PED and approved by Council on an annual basis. The costs not met by revenues associated with the airport are funded through the District’s budgeting process.

There are 4 full time employees at the airport (in additional to 3 seasonal co‐op students, for the equivalent of 5.04 FTE’s). All are employees of the District and fall within the collective agreements of the District.

The airport purchases internal corporate services such as human resources, legal, finance, engineering, trades, and property management, from other District departments.

This type of government owned and operated governance model, with the airport reporting through a government department works best when the airport has a heavy general aviation focus, is recognized as an economic driver for the Region, and when many smaller municipalities benefit from the airport. This type of model also allows for workforce flexibility (e.g., cross‐training within the District and part‐time support from other departments).

Other benefits of this model include:

very few requirements for special arrangements as airport staff are employees of the municipality;

District Council

CAO

Other Department s (HR, Legal, Finance, Engineering , trades, property management etc.)

Airport Manager

Full Time Airport Staff

Planning & Economic Development (PED)


Seasonal Airport Staff

Planning & Economic Development Committee

Airport purchases internal services from other departments

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


mobile maintenance equipment can be stored and maintained in municipal garages i.e., reducing the necessity of duplicate facilities at the airport;

shared support services, equipment and facilities can lower costs;

all municipalities participate through the governance structure through their elected representatives;

costs are shared among all municipal tax payers within the region;

the District as the airport owner and operator typically qualifies for infrastructure subsidy and/or capital programs (e.g., recent infrastructure stimulus programs);

tax levies are available to cover operating and capital requirements.

This model does however have its challenges, including:

decision making can be politically driven and/or lengthy;

many political/government stakeholders each trying to represent their own communities;

many government stakeholders without a background in aviation;

municipal budgets are already stressed, and the airport needs to compete with other municipal priorities;

shared support services can increase the time to action / implement;

when funding programs come along, municipalities often have to choose their top ranked priority, and often airport requirements come after sewers, roads and water treatment facilities;

property taxes accrue to the municipality within which the airport is located (in this case Gravenhurst), versus to the District;

the taxing regime can often be perceived as unfair (inequitable distribution vs the benefits);

Advisory Committees may not function properly, if there are too many members, of if there is unbalanced representation, of if the individuals appointed are not appropriate to the tasks.

SINGLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OWNS AND OPERATES

This model is essentially the same as having a Region or District own and operate the airport; however only one area municipality/City/Town owns and operates the airport.

This type of model works best when the airport is recognized as an economic driver for primarily one municipality; typically the municipality with significant population and/or economic activity.

The benefits of this model are the same as with the Region / District model. However, because there are fewer interests to be represented, approvals and decision making is typically quicker.

The challenges of this model area also the same as with the Region District model; however if more than one municipality benefits, cost sharing (if an agreement can be negotiated) can be more difficult to manage; particularly if one opts out. Additionally, those municipalities without direct involvement in the operation of the airport may feel a lack of control or influence over airport decisions that could affect them.

An example of this model within Ontario is the City of Kingston.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


GOVERNMENT OWNED, AIRPORT COMMISSION OPERATES

With this model, the local government owns the land and buildings. A not‐for‐profit Airport Commission (similar to a Municipal Board) is established by one or more municipal governments under power of the Municipal Act or by Provincial legislation. If incorporated, the Commission could have independent and legal authority of its own. The Commission is a partially autonomous body with delegated powers over some airport issues. These powers and delegations are set through Municipal bylaws.

The Commission’s management board typically includes a mix of elected councillors and individuals with aviation experience nominated by the municipality(ies). The Commission reports to Council who approves the operational and capital budgets on an annual basis.

While financial self‐sufficiency is not required, it is desired, and this model works well when the airport has a strong commercial focus. Under this model, funding, if required, continues to come from the municipality(ies).

How the airport staff are employed is up to the municipality when the Commission is set up. For example, airport staff can either be employed by the Commission (if incorporated as a legal entity), or could remain employed by the municipality.

Corporate services can either be provided by airport staff, or can be purchased from the municipality or other external parties.

Municipal Council

City Manager / CAO

Other Departments

AIRPORT

Airport Manager

Dedicated Airport Staff

Municipal Department


PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


The primary benefits of this model are:

The airport is operated like a business to the greatest extent possible;

The Commission has operational independence within approved budgets i.e. an arms‐length relationship with the government owner, thus providing airport specific focus which facilitates decision making and implementation;

The municipality retains control over budgets;

There is a balance of stakeholder interests and more aviation experts on the Commission, again facilitating decision making and implementation; and

The Commission acts as a “champion” for the airport and may take a more energetic interest in the airport;

As with all models, the Commission also has its challenges, for example:

It is not free from political influence, although there is less than with a government owned and operated model;

From the government owner’s perspective, it loses direct control over operational decisions;

The local government contributions still have to compete with other municipal priorities;, and

The Commission would need to consider broader regional economic development goals when making airport focused decisions.

Examples of Airport Commissions in Ontario are found in Parry Sound, Gore Bay‐Manitoulin, Niagara District (St. Catherines), and Manitoulin East.

Airport Manager

Terminal Operations

AirsideOperations

Municipal Council

Airport OwnerMunicipality (ies)

Planning & Engineering

BD & Marketing

Corporate Services

Airport Commission

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


GOVERNMENT OWNED, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OPERATES

With this model, the local government owns the land and buildings. A not‐for‐profit Airport Authority is established as a non‐share capital corporation incorporated under Canada Corporations Act Part II, or by provincial legislation. The Authority operates the airport independently under its own set of bylaws (different than the Federal Airport Authority model), and has no direct ties to a municipal body. The Authority has significant control over all aspects of its business, and is most often self‐sufficient financially. Employees may or may not be unionized.

The Authority is governed by a Board of Directors typically nominated by the airport owner and community at large. Board membership typically comprises a good mix of outside experts.

Financial self‐sufficiency is typically expected (cover operational and capital costs), based on a strong commercial revenue stream.

Airport staff are typically employed by the corporation, although there are examples in Ontario where the staff remain employees of the municipality. As with a Commission, corporate services can be provided directly by airport staff, or purchased externally or from the municipality.

Authorities can typically borrow money at commercial rates.

The primary benefits of this model are:

The Authority is independent and free from political influence;

A strong airport commercial focus;

Ability to borrow on the commercial market;

The Board has broad stakeholder representation and has a good mix of experts;

As with all models, the Authority also has its challenges, for example:

Airport Manager / CEO

Terminal Operations AirsideOperations

Board of Directors

Airport OwnerMunicipality

Planning & Engineering BD & Marketing

Corporate Services

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


It almost always needs to ensure financial self‐sustainability

Examples of Airport Authorities in Ontario are found in North Bay, Sudbury, Kenora, and Lake Simcoe.

GOVERNMENT OWNED, PRIVATE OPERATOR

With this model, the local government owns the land and buildings, but contractors out the operations to a private operator i.e., a service contract. The operator prepares the annual budgets, and submits to the municipality for approval, then works within that budget. The airport owner retains the responsibility for airport development and funding. The owner also retains the liability risk yet has little control over the private contractor’s actions.

This type of model works best when the municipality lacks experience in airport management, and there is interest from the private sector, often a based tenant.

The challenges associated with this model is that the contract must provide the private sector operator with sufficient ability to earn a profit, and there is likely no access to shared services. Additionally, if the contactor suddenly becomes unable to manage the airport, there may not readily be a replacement contractor or trained municipal staff to step in, even on a temporary basis.

Examples of privately operated airports in Ontario include Hamilton, Peterborough, and Red Lake.

PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED

With this model, the private sector owns the land, infrastructure and equipment, and operates the airport. The private operator is responsible for operating, marketing and developing the airport.

This type of model works best when there is sufficient commercial revenue stream for the private owner/operator to make a profit. The benefits of this model are that, there is no financial risk or burden to the municipality, and tax revenues continue to accrue to the municipality in which the airport is located.

The challenges however are that it could be more expensive for the user (although some would argue that private sector operation is more efficient than government), the municipality has no control over

Private Sector Airport Manager

Dedicated Airport Staff (private sector)

Municipal Council

Airport OwnerMunicipality

City Manager / CAO

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


the services or facilities provided, and the municipality loses all potential revenue streams other than taxes. The biggest risk is that an important municipal asset could be lost if the operator ceases to exist.

Examples of a privately owned and operated airport in Ontario include Sault Ste. Marie.

SUMMARY

Figure 7‐1 below summarizes the benefits and challenges associated with each model.

Figure 7‐1: Comparison of Alternative Airport Governance Models

7.2 IT’S ABOUT MORE THAN GOVERNANCE

There is no single structure that will best apply to the management and operation of municipal airports. It is highly dependent on a number of factors, including:

Owner Operator Pros Cons

Region / District

Region / District

• Shared funding among all municipalities or tax payers who benefit

• Ability to retain internal or shared services• ability to cross‐utilize some vehicles &

equipment • Tax levy spread out over larger regional tax

base with more tax payers

• Many political stakeholders with equal voices;• Council not airport experts• Potential for political &/or lengthy decision

making• Airport competes with other infrastructure

priorities for funding• Potential for one or more municipalities to opt out

of cost share agreement• Loss of control from other municipalities

Single Municipality

Single Municipality

• Similar to Region/District, except:• Fewer municipal and political stakeholders

with decision making power; could facilitate approvals

• Similar to Region/District, except:• No opportunity to opt out, or “loss of control”

issues

Region / Municipality

Airport Commission

• Operated like a business to the greatest extent possible

• Municipalcontrol maintained over budgets• Operational independence within approved

budgets ; faster decision making• Ability to retain internal or shared services• Balance of stakeholder interests; many with

aviation experience• Airport champion• Council freed from external lobbying efforts

• Ownerhas less operational control / influence, though there are still opportunities for political influence

• Goal of regional economic development needs to be balanced with attention to bottom line

• Local government contributions still have to compete with other municipal priorities

• Owner retains liability risk; yet little control over private operator’s actions

Region / Municipality

Airport Authority

• Operated like a business• Independence; free from political influence• Board typically comprised of a good mix of

external experts• Ability to borrow as municipal funding typically

not available (or in most cases required)• Airport Champion

• Must ensure financial self‐sufficiency• Usually no access to shared services, although

possible• Owner retains liability risk; yet little control over

private operator’s actions

Region /Municipality

Private • Experienced & interested airport operator (usually a based tenant)

• Non‐unionized environment

• If contractor leaves unexpectedly; leaves a big hole to fill

• No access to shared services• Owner retains liability risk; yet little control over

private operator’s actions

Private Private • No risk or financial burdenon municipality • Municipalasset (economic generator) could be lost if operator closes

• Access to capital

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Scope and complexity of activities;

Actual benefit derived by the municipality;

Level of service decided upon;

Interest in the community;

Municipal organization itself;

Number of participating municipalities;

Influence of airport users;

Willingness of volunteers from inside and outside of the aviation community to contribute, participate and serve on an advisory committee;

Degree of cooperation among participants such as Tourism, Economic Development, Chambers of Commerce, etc.; and

Entrepreneurial spirit / business orientation of airport management.

Successful airports, regardless of ownership or operations structure are characterized by:

A strong commercial focus, with an emphasis on maximizing non‐aeronautical revenues;

An entrepreneurial focus in the airport management team;

A strong customer service focus;

Effective links to the community;

A commitment to consultations and a partnership approach with aircraft operators and other key stakeholders; and

Effective planning processes with publicly available planning documents.

7.3 POLICY MAKERS AND MANAGEMENT

Regardless of the airport management approach, responsibilities are typically divided between policy makers and management. In a public service operation policy makers may be at the government level, while in a Commission model, the Commission body is the policy maker; and in airport authorities and private airports, the policy maker role is held by the Board of Directors.

THE ROLE OF POLICY MAKERS

Policy makers are normally responsible for:

Selecting the airport manager;

Setting goals for management;

Overseeing the airport manager’s responsibilities;

Establishing policies for airport operations and development;

Working with management to develop a strategic plan and to guide implementation of the plan;

Approving contracts;

Acting as an advocate for the airport;

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Reviewing and approving budgets and financial reports; and

Monitoring financial performance.

Airport policy makers are guided by:

A code of ethics governing their own behaviour;

Bylaws – the rules of order and protocol for documenting official acts. Policy makers also approve new bylaws;

Rules and regulations that typically set out the meaning of bylaws in more detail;

Contracts and ordinances defining the Board’s relationship with the airport users and tenants; and

The position descriptions for airport staff.

To be effective, policy makers must be:

Knowledgeable about the key financial information about the airport;

Willing to promote the airport in their public activities;

Supportive of airport management;

Generally knowledgeable about the airport environment and trends in airport development and operations; and

Clear of any conflicts of interest.

The conflict of interest issue is one that frequently arises with the appointment of policy makers. People active in aviation (e.g. general aviation operators, air carrier management) can believe that they will make a valuable contribution to airport policy making, but can have conflicts. For example, a general aviation owner may be interested in low airport fees, but as a policy maker he/she should be interested in the financial viability of the airport.

THE ROLE OF AIRPORT MANAGEMENT

Regardless of the governance model, the core role of the airport management remains largely unchanged and includes:

Operating the airport in a safe and secure manner in accordance with legislation and regulations;

Coordinating / reporting to the airport owner;

Implementing policies developed by the policy maker;

Maintaining all facilities – airfield, buildings, services etc.;

Community relations including explaining the role and importance of the airport to the public;

Financial planning and financial management;

Environmental management;

Planning the airport’s future;

Staffing to achieve the airport’s goals;

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Ensuring that training and tools are in place to enable staff to effectively undertake their jobs; and

Ensuring that there are standardized methods of operation.

7.4 GOVERNANCE AT YQA – MOVING FORWARD

The District has already confirmed and re‐confirmed that the airport is viewed as an economic generator. However, many stakeholders interviewed indicated a desire to change the governance model at YQA to add a more commercial focus.

It is the consultant team’s opinion that the two most viable options for YQA are the Status Quo, and the creation of an Airport Commission.

The status quo is working; however it is understood that opportunities are sometimes lost or stalled due to delays in the decision making process.

Having the airport operated by an incorporated Airport Commission could offer the following added benefits:

Subject matter experts in the policy maker role. The Commissioner / Chairman would have an aviation background and would be dedicated to proactively promoting the airport;

Broader representation from key stakeholder groups;

The planning and decision making would be put in the hands of a smaller group, who are subject matter experts with a single focus and not being pulled in many directions. Decision making would be quicker and subject matter experts would not need to be brought up to speed on technical issues;

More commercial focus;

Council being freed from external lobbying efforts;

Council would continue to be represented in the policy maker role, would still be in control of budgets, and would be kept informed / updated regularly through formal reporting.

7.5 IMPLEMENTING AN AIRPORT COMMISSION AT YQA

The Commission would be incorporated under the Municipal Act or by Provincial legislation as a not‐for‐profit organization. Specific powers and delegations would need to be set by Municipal bylaws. This is at the discretion of the District; however to achieve the most benefit from a change in governance model, the more autonomy given to the Commission, the better.

The Commission would be made up of representatives appointed by the District as owner, as well as individuals with aviation experience nominated by municipalities who have a range of skills sets and experience in airport management, aviation, legal, finance, business etc. Strategic recruitment of Commissioners should be done to fill gaps in key skill sets or to diversify representation of stakeholder groups. The Airport Manager / Executive Director would be a non‐voting member of the Commission. The Commission’s role would be that of ‘policy maker’ as generally described above, but specifically to:

Set strategic direction;

Recommend annual business plan to Council for adoption;

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Establish and approve policies and rate structures;

Provide resource and financial oversight

Approve land and facility leases, and sale of land within Council approved land sales policy;

Determine expected performance levels, then monitor performance against plan;

Ensure legal, fiscal and ethical integrity of the organization;

Promote the organization’s image and take the lead with respect to the relationship with key stakeholders and Council;

Take an active role in business development / marketing;

Provide direction to the Airport Manager;

Conduct an annual performance review of the Airport Manager;

Provide regular reporting to Council.

Individual Commissioners would not have a mandate to direct activities of the airport.

The Airport Manager / Executive Director would be responsible for the day‐to‐day operations and administration of the airport, including staffing, issuing contracts, paying bills, recommending leases, and preparing the annual business plans.

Council’s role would be to approve the operational and capital budgets, and approve any borrowing for capital projects.

The Commission would operate the airport in accordance with approved budgets. Any operational deficits would continue to be funded by tax levies. If borrowing is required, this could be done by the Commission up to a set amount pre‐established by Council, in accordance with terms set by Council. The Commission would be responsible for maintaining and arranging for the audit of its own set of financial statements. The accounting books of the airport will no longer be a subset of the PED department.

Airport staff could continue to be employed by the District, or could be employed directly by the Commission. When making a decision, consideration should be given to existing collective agreements, and the availability of qualified staff.

Procurement could continue to be done through the District’s procurement department if this is deemed the most efficient method. If this is the case, the Commission will need to accept the District’s procurement terms and conditions.

The Commission would become the “certificate holder” in the eyes of Transport Canada and will become responsible for operating the airport in accordance with legislative and regulatory requirements. The airport owner (the District) will retain environmental liability; while the Commission holds all other liability e.g., public. Both the Commission and the District will need insurance.

Setting up the Commission is a complex undertaking and will require the services of legal counsel. It is recommended that the District, should it choose to adopt this model, speak at length with other airports who have gone through this process.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the various consultations, analysis, forecasts, discussions and assessments carried out as part of this study, we make the following recommendations. These recommendations are grouped into key areas as follows:

• Land development plan

• Infrastructure Plan

• Financial Plan

• Business Plan

• Governance


1. Land development at the airport over the next 20 or so years should be per Plan B‐R. The key

features of this plan are as follows:

a. Relocate the grass runway some 700‐800m to the north and orient this new runway in a

12‐30 direction to better accommodate the needs of the airport’s smaller aircraft;

b. Carry out additional surveys and a more detailed assessment to determine what actual

length of runway may be possible without the need to purchase lands to the east to

achieve a length similar to what is there today (2,000 – 2,200 ft);

c. If necessary, purchase land to the east of the grass runway to accommodate a length at

least as long as the grass runway is today;

d. Develop the west part of the area vacated by the grass runway into a 9‐10 acre

subdivision comprising a mix of some larger lots to accommodate Muskoka Aircraft

Refinishing and/or any other MRO tenant that may be interested, some smaller lots

capable of handling a mix of some private aircraft hangars, T‐hangars and aircraft

parking/tie‐down areas;

e. Develop the east lands to the south of the new grass runway into a new 25 acre +/‐

subdivision providing a mix of large lots to accommodate potential additional MRO

activities, medium lots for aircraft hangars and supporting uses to MRO and smaller lots

for a mix of T‐hangars, aircraft tie‐downs, and other uses;

f. Develop a number of lots along the north side of Beaver Creek Road for aviation or even

non‐aviation related landside type uses (those not requiring access to taxiways);

g. Develop lands in the area east of the threshold of Runway 18 for covered tie downs

using Quonset hut type construction;

h. Develop some area between the parallel taxiway and the north end of Runway 18 for

low‐cost, uncovered tie downs;

i. Phase the land development so as to meet the anticipated demand in a just in time

manner. For the 2 major subdivisions, the phasing would probably be in 4‐6 acre chunks.

For the others, it should be as determined at the time.

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


2. Over the very long term, the airport should consider mixed use of the lands located west of the

airport between the Gravenhurst Parkway and Highway 11. The key features of this very long

term plan could include the following:

a. Relocation of the Gravenhurst Parkway to the west to provide the primary means of

access to the industrial lands located there;

b. Reaffirming the designation of the lands to the west for mixed industrial and aviation

related uses;

c. Terminating the south portion of the current Gravenhurst Parkway to provide access to

the terminal area and MAR only;

d. Relocating the abandoned north portion of the current Gravenhurst Parkway alignment

further west to accommodate future development all along a future parallel taxiway

along the westside of the main runway (18‐36);

e. Making provision for the potential extension of the crosswind runway (12‐30) further to

the east, permitting a total length of some 4,500 ft +/‐.

f. This long term plan should be revisited and better defined in the next 10 year update to

this Master Plan or at such a time that any development proposals are brought forward

to develop the lands to the west.

INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

3. Pave the grass runway initially to about 2,000 ft or whatever length may be possible given the

constraints of the lands to the east. This will provide for better operations at the airport in terms

of ground flows as well as improving the accessibility of the airport. This will also make the

airport more attractive to some users, especially flight schools and others using smaller aircraft.

4. Give consideration to paving the new runway (12‐30) to a length of about 2,800 ft in order to

provide better accessibility to and usability of the airport for smaller aircraft that cannot sustain

higher crosswind components and to make the airport more attractive to wider spectrum of

users. This should be done sooner rather than later, but we acknowledge it will be a policy

decision based on availability of funds and a variety of other considerations. Consideration

should also be given to providing lighting along this runway, but this can be deferred to a later

time in the future, depending on the actual use of this runway;

5. Implement LPV approaches to the main runway to improve the reliability of airport access,

install RILS on the runway to aid pilots on approach and install a PAPI on Runway 36 to improve

the safety of this approach;

6. Protect for the eventual extension of the parallel taxiway to 18‐36 all the way to the south to

open up the lands to the west of this area and to improve the capacity of the main runway. Only

construct this taxiway when required for land access or capacity, but in any case, probably not

until the latter part of this 20 year plan;

7. Reserve sufficient space for a terminal area apron expansion to both the north and south to

accommodate both forecast growth in aircraft parking and potentially unforeseen growth in

terms of future scheduled carrier(s). The likelihood is that an apron expansion may not be

required until sometime in the 10‐20 year time frame, depending on how well the airport does

in managing peak demands and when, if at all, a scheduled service may start up;

PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


8. Reserve sufficient space for a terminal building expansion and associated car parking area. This

may only be required sometime in the 10‐20 year time frame, depending on whether the airport

attract becomes a base with a scheduled airline service;

9. Develop a more detailed major maintenance and repairs plan along the lines that we have

proposed and then implement on an as required basis, continually monitoring the various

facilities’ conditions so as to be able to adjust the timing of the major maintenance and repairs;

10. Test alternative airport café/restaurant concepts, starting with minimalist concepts to prove the

concepts and then working up from there should trials prove successful.

FINANCIAL PLAN

11. The airport must ensure that land sales through its land sale policy are properly valued. To

ensure this, the airport must work with local appraisers to ensure that they better understand

the true value of airport lands.

12. The airport should implement a series of supporting fees and charges that are similar to but

lower than competitors like Lake Simcoe. These fees could involve development permit levies,

development service fees, etc.

13. The airport should consider increasing other fees as well, including the AMC and others. These

fees should be constantly reviewed against the competitor airports and adjusted accordingly,

with the goal being to maximize the airport’s revenues.

14. The airport should aggressively pursue land sales as a means of attracting additional tenants

and to raise the necessary funds to pay for the various expansions.

BUSINESS PLAN

15. While the current airport logo and brand appear to be strong, consideration should be giving to

reviewing this to see if this could be enhanced to better reflect a more aggressive marketing

approach for the airport.

16. The business plan for the airport should be based on conservative targets and assumptions with

respect to growth and land development, but at the same time the airport should pursue a

much more aggressive approach that can pay much stronger dividends.

GOVERNANCE

17. The District should consider moving to an Airport Commission Model to govern and manage the

airport. This should allow the airport to focus on more commercial and customer service related

activities and would be consistent with a recommendation to more aggressively pursue

development and land sales as means of improving the airport’s revenues.

PED-9-2013-4B

A‐1


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


APPENDIX A: LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED

The following organizations were contacted by SNC Lavalin Team members in August / September / October 2012. While all organizations / people were contacted, not all were available for interview.

ORGANIZATION Person Title

Beaver Creek Institution – Correctional Service Canada

Pam Gray Assistant Warden

Discount Car and Truck Rental Paul LaLumiere District Manager Ferrari Flight Training Sandor Ferrari Owner Lake Central Air Services Elton Townsend Owner Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Mike Drumm Airport Manager Muskoka Airport Mark Stirling Airport Manager Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing Mike Goudie Owner Muskoka District Council John Klinck Muskoka District Chair Muskoka Flying Club Earle Robinson President Nav Canada Dean Edwards Site Supervisor Northern Air Solutions Heather and Gerald

Vandertas Owners

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Larry D’Andrea Senior Engineer Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources ‐ Air Services

Bob Crowell Operations Manager for OMNR Air Services

Parry Sound Municipal Airport Neil Pirie Airport Manager Peterborough Municipal Airport Nancy Hewitt Airport Administrator Private Hangar Owner Craig Thompson Owner Planning & Economic Development Committee – Muskoka District

Lori‐Lynn Giaschi‐Pacini Chair

Private Hangar and Industrial Facility Rob Clark Industrial Facility Owner Town of Bracebridge Graydon Smith Mayor Cheryl Kelley Director Economic Development Township of Georgian Bay Larry Braid Mayor Jennifer Schnier Economic Development Officer Town of Gravenhurst Paisley Donaldson Mayor Town of Gravenhurst

Tony Rossi Director ‐ Economic Development & Communications

Town of Huntsville Claude Doughty Mayor John Finley Economic Development and Grants Township of Lake of Bays Bob Young Mayor Stephen Szczerbak Planner Township of Muskoka Lakes Alice Murphy Mayor Allen Edwards Township Councillor Ron Brent Township Councillor Lisa McMurray Community Economic Development Officer Michael Wotherspoon Michael Wotherspoon Owner

Air Muskoka Dave Gonfors Owner Grassroots Aviation Bob Marsh Owner Muskoka Tourism Agency Michael Lawley

PED-9-2013-4B

B‐1


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


APPENDIX B: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

DOCUMENT

A Muskoka Airport Marketing and Business Development Strategy, November 2003

Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices, TP312E, 4th Edition, March 1993, Corrigendum No. 2 Issued April 2005

Aircraft Movement Statistics: Airports Without Air Traffic Control Towers: Annual Report (TP 577) 2011

Airport Income and Development Review, March 2008

Airport Operations Manual – The District Municipality of Muskoka ‐ Muskoka Airport, Amendment #3, September 6, 2005

Airport Overview, Briefing for City Council, City of Peterborough, May 12, 2008

Aviation Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports, TP 1247E, May 2005

Background Report: Muskoka Airport Development Plan, May 30, 2011

Background Report: Muskoka Airport Development Plan, Presentation, June 9, 2011

Canada Air Pilot, CAP 4, Ontario, 15 NOV 12, Nav Canada

Canadian Airport Charts, 15 NOV 12, Nav Canada

Canada Flight Supplement, 15 NOV 12, Nav Canada

District Municipality of Muskoka Report No: 14 (2011)‐2: Airport Woodlot (Option 2) Development Area and Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing Ltd. Proposal, District Council Resolutions 104/2011 and 112/2011 and Resolution R41/2011‐PED (Tabled) First of Four Airport Reports, September 14, 2011

District Municipality of Muskoka Report No: 14 (2011)‐3: Muskoka Airport Financial Plan – Revised District Council Resolution 104/2011, Second of Four Airport Reports, September 19, 2011

District Municipality of Muskoka Report No: PED‐10‐2011‐2: Muskoka Airport Development Plan – Background Report, May 31, 2011

District Municipality of Muskoka Report No: PED‐12‐2011‐5: Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

District Municipality of Muskoka Report No: PED‐13‐2011‐2: Creation of a New Development Area at the Muskoka Airport, July 2, 2011

District Municipality of Muskoka Memorandum: Expiry of the Transfer Agreement for the Muskoka Airport, May 11, 2005

District Municipality of Muskoka 2010 Tax Supported Operating & Capital Budget Planning & Economic Development, April 12, 2010

District Municipality of Muskoka 2011 Tax Supported Operating & Capital Budget Planning & Economic

PED-9-2013-4B

B‐2


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Development, March, 2011

District Municipality of Muskoka 2012 Tax Supported Operating & Capital Budget Planning & Economic Development, February, 2012

District Municipality of Muskoka, Detailed Stormwater Management Report, June 8, 2012

District Municipality of Muskoka, Muskoka Airport, On‐Site Sewage System Report, June 8, 2012

East Side Development Fence Route 2012, Drawing

FedNor Minister Air Drops Money on Parry Sound Business Centre, Airport; Northern Ontario Business, January 10, 2011

Final Environmental Impact Study for Lands East of Muskoka Airport The District Municipality of Muskoka, December 2005

Lake Simcoe Regional Airport, Commercial Development Opportunities, 2011

Muskoka Airport Advisory Committee Orientation Presentation, February 13, 2012

Muskoka Airport Cross‐wind Runway Relocation Feasibility Study, Gravenhurst, ON, Final Report, December 2011

Muskoka Airport Eastside Development Areas Presentation, 2011

Muskoka Airport, East Development Proposed Lots, Drawing, February 2012

Muskoka Airport Economic Impact Study, November 15, 2005

Muskoka Airport Economic Impact Study, November, 2001

Muskoka Airport Layout, November 14, 2011

Muskoka Airport Layout with Air Photo, November 14, 2011

Muskoka Airport Master Plan, September 1999

Muskoka Airport Pavement Re‐Evaluation – Runway and Apron Surfaces, October 11, 2011

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment District Municipality of Muskoka, June 2011

Muskoka Airport Windrose Usability Study, Gravenhurst, ON, Final Report, November 2010

Muskoka Airport Zoning Regulations, SOR/84‐567, Current to December 10, 2012

Ontario Municipal Airports Data Collection Study, 2011 Update

Parry Sound Airport Expands; Northern Ontario Business, August 20, 2010

Parry Sound Airport Expands Again; Northern Ontario Business, June 17, 2010

Parry Sound Airport Spreads its Wings; Northern Ontario Business, June 12, 2008

PED-9-2013-4B

B‐3


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Peterborough Municipal Airport Master Plan, October 28, 2009

Review of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority “Needs Assessment Study – Pickering Lands”, Implications for General Aviation in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Ontario, September 2011

Scope of Work – Preliminary Muskoka VHF/DF Relocation, Nav Canada EPD – December 20, 2011

Stormwater Management Drawings, Muskoka Airport East Development, June 8, 2012

Strategic Business Plan for the Muskoka Airport, January 2006

Study of Municipal Airports in Ontario, Final Report, September 2006

The Eagle has Landed in the Parry Sound Area; Cottage Country Now.ca, April 4, 2012

The Location, Boundary of and Uses Permitted in the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Economic Employment District, September 24, 2012

Transport Canada Letter to Mark Stirling: Muskoka Airport Operations Manual – Amendment #3 and Airport Emergency Response Plan, August 2, 2006

2009 Muskoka Airport Economic Impact Study, November 4, 2009

Wind Criteria Due to Obstacles at and around Airports, National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR‐CR‐2006‐261, May 2008

Criteria for Obstacle Induced Wind Disturbances at Amsterdam Schipol Airport, ICAO Aerodrome Meteorological Observation and Forecast Study Group, Ninth Meeting, 26‐30 September 2011, Montreal, AMOFSG/9‐SN No.25 8/8/11.

PED-9-2013-4B

C‐1


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


APPENDIX C – AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS

PED-9-2013-4B

D‐1


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


APPENDIX D – INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

PED-9-2013-4B

D‐2


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


PED-9-2013-4B

D‐3


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


PED-9-2013-4B

D‐4


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


PED-9-2013-4B


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


APPENDIX E: OPPORTUNITIES MODELLING ANALYSIS

PED-9-2013-4B

E‐1


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


STEP 1: INVESTMENT READINESS – MUSKOKA AIRPORT

MUSKOKA PARRY SOUND PETERBOROUGH LAKE SIMCOE (BARRIE) OSHAWA KINGSTON NIAGARA DISTRICT HALIBURTON / STANHOPE

AEROSPACE PRODUCTS & SERVICES 15 12 18 13 17 11 9 4

2 2 2 2 4 3 2 114 12 18 12 30 4 10 4

2 2 3 2 3 3 2 1

based on FedNor survey (2010) and confirmed in 2012

based on FedNor survey (2010) and confirmed in 2012

manufacturing /parts/assembly, medevac, MRO, charter, F&B, FBO

charter, MRO, airport services, flight training, FBO,F&B, other

charter, MRO, airport services, flight training, FBO, museum, F&B, other

scheduled and charter passenger service, FBO, flight training, airport services, air traffic control services

charter, flight training, FBO, MRO Aircraft hangars, public services (MNR)

3 1 2 2 3 2 2 03 largest groups (6, 5, 5) 3 largest groups (5, 3, 3) ocused on MRO and a/c parts & man 3 charter almost more than one in most categories focused on scheduled passenger service focused on tourism related flights focused on aircraft hangars

5 3 5 2 3 0 0 0

Aztec Nomad, Grass Roots, Muskoka Aircraft, Trinity, Muskoka

A/C RefinishingEmhiser, Found, ProSafe

Artech, Kadex, Int'l AC support & turbine engine sales, Shield Source, Flying Colour Corp.

Aero Covers, Dominion-Pegasus viation museums, 1 engine technology comp None tourism related flights, MRO for DND None

2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

Azted Nomad, Grass Roots, Muskoka Aircraft, Trinity, Muskoka

A/C Refinishing - pot'l for R&D

pot'l R&D and SJIF for Found A/C, Northern Ontario Heritage Fund

Corporationpot'l R&D and SJIF, ISF

Infrastructure Stimulus Fund: Contributed towards $15.32 million

expansion (2010) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

1 1 3 2 3 2 2 1

AAIC Ont Chapter, but no members in north; Mukoka Futures - interest

unknown

AAIC Ont Chapter, but no members in north; Mukoka Futures - interest

unknown

AAIC Ont Chapter, CBDB interest unknown

UnknownAAIC Ont Chapter, CBDB interest

unknownUnknown City and Region very interested in developing airport Unknown

AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 22 19 25 23 22 25 22 9

4 3 4 4 2 3 3 16,000' 4,000' 7,000' 6,000' 4,000' 4,929' 5,000' 2,500'

2 2 4 3 4 4 3 1

NDB, med intensity lighting NDB, med intensity lighting NDB, ARCAL, high intensity lightingB, DME, new LPV, med intensity ligh NDB, DME, LOC, high intensity lighting NDB, ILS, high intensity lighting NDB, ARCAL, medium intensity lightingCode 1 Non-Instrument Runway (low

intensity lighting

3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2

phone, AOE/15, taxi, car rental phone, foodphone, food; AOE/15, new terminal

bld with more services

phone, food; AOE/24, wifi, washrooms, outdoor deck,

boardroom, taxi,

at aerodrome but not in ATB - phone, food, car rental; AOE/50

at aerodrome but not in ATB - phone, food, car rental; AOE/30

phone, AOE/15Washrooms, showers, change rooms,

snack in terminal

5 3 4 4 5 5 5 2

fuel, storage, minor repair, major repair, parking, tie-downs, plug-ins,

customs

fuel, storage, minor repair, major repair, parking, tie-downs, plug-ins

fuel, storage, minor repair, major repair, parking, tie-downs, customs





Township-owned commercial/hangar building for heated indoor maintenance

and/or for storage of up to 5 aircraft• Two-bay vehicle workshop, fuel, storage

1 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

airport has some land avail. for sale

Variety of municipal industrial properties throughout Seguin, as well as vacancies

in the Parry Sound Area Municipal Airport's Industrial Park

lots availale and expanding lots and expandingunknown, but assumed avail as pursuing

oppsunknown, but assumed avail as pursuing opps unknown, but assumed avail as pursuing opps

unknown, but assumed avail as pursuing opps, Township-owned “T Hangar"

complex with a storage capacity of 16 aircraft

• Township-owned commercial/hangar building for heated indoor maintenance

and/or for storage of up to 5 aircraft4 2 3 3 2 3 3

community plan to develop aerospace / aviation sector

Re-instatement of CANPASS designation Fourth Phase of Expansion, Eagle Air Building Industrial Expansion

Project

Airport Development Program almost complete

Business Development Plan Runway extension and terminal expansion completed MP (2007) Economic (2009) currently in planning but limited area (5.3 ha airside) Runway extension, MNR base

3 0 2 2 0 0 0 2

Ornge seasonal base, MNR year-round noneTransport Canada, Seneca College

to start in Jan 2013Ontario Provincial Police, Hydro

One HelicoptersMNR for their forestry firefighting base

3 3 3 2 3 4 3FedNor, Regional/Municipal

Funding, Communities Adjustment Fund

FedNor, other studies FedNor, other studies ISF FedDev, other studies ACAP, FedDev, other studies FedDev, other studies ??

AEROSPACE / AVIATION TRAINING & EDUCATION 3 4 5 6 6 4 4 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 4 5 4 3 3 3

Georgian college (Barrie) Georgian college (Barrie) GTA universities (Seneca) GTA universities, Georgian College GTA universities GTA universities, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal GTA universities, Niagara Region GTA universities

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A/C owner training

1 3 1 1 2 1 1 0

Ferarri Georgan Bay Airways, BP Flight Training W.M. Aeroflight Future Air 2 flight schools unknown St. Catharines Flying Club

LOCATION / ACCESS 3 3 4 5 6 7 5 4

3 3 4 5 5 4 5 4

Muskoka to Toronto 2 hrs drive Parry Sound to Toronto 2.5 hrs Peterborough to TO 1 hr 45 min drive To Toronto - ~60-80 mins Oshawa to TO 45 min drive Kingston to TO 3 hr drive St. Catharines to TO 1.25 hr drive 3 hr drive to TO

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0Service to Toronto, Moosonee

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0no connections no connections

score 46 38 54 49 51 47 40 22rank 5 7 1 3 2 4 6 8

Availability of Scheduled Passenger Service

Regional Aviation / Aerospace Activity

Availabilty of Pilot Training(type = fixed wing or rotary winglicense = recreational, private or commercial, militaryratings = instrument, night, floats, etc.)

Availability of Other Specialized Aerospace / Aviation Technical Training

Labour Supply(# graduates annually from post-secondary institutions with specialty aviation / aerospace programs)

Development Plans

Availability of Aircraft Services at Airport(incl. customs for cargo, and hours of operations)

Year-Round Base for Public Services(e.g., OMNR, MOHLTC/ORNGE, police, post-secondary institutions)

Access to Funding / Incentives(grants, loans, etc.)

Distance to provincial, national or international distribution centre for products / services(Toronto, Winnipeg, Minneapolis)

Availability of Specialized Technical Aerospace / Aviation Training(post-secondary credits)

Existence of Aviation / Aerospace Business Network or Association(group in CD interested in aviation / aerospace industry)

Runway Length and Type (main runway)

Availability of Navigational and Visual Aids at AirportsNavigational aids (ILS, VOR, NDB etc.)Visual aids (runway lighting, approach lighting, etc.)

Availability of Public Facilities (passenger services) at Airport(phone, food, taxi, medical, car rental, customs)

Availability of Land for Development or Buildings for Lease

Number of aerospace / aviation businesses at aiport

Diversity of aerospace / aviation sector at airport(based on 21 NAICs)

Degree of Concentration(in one or more business areas based on NAICs)

Existence of customized, unique or specialty aviation / aerospace services

Access to Incentives / Funding(grants, loans, etc.)

PED-9-2013-4B

E‐2


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


PED-9-2013-4B

E‐3


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


PED-9-2013-4B

E‐4


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


PED-9-2013-4B

E‐5


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


PED-9-2013-4B

F‐1


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


APPENDIX F: ADDITIONAL WIND ANALSYSIS GRAPHS

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

09‐27 10‐28 11‐29 12‐30 13‐31 14‐32 15‐33 16‐34 17‐35 18‐36

Xwind Severity and Coverage by Runway Direction

Year Round all Periods

<10kt <13kt >5kt

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

09‐27 10‐28 11‐29 12‐30 13‐31 14‐32 15‐33 16‐34 17‐35 18‐36

Xwind Severity and Coverage by Runway Direction

Summer Daytime Only

<10kt <13kt >5 kt

PED-9-2013-4B

G‐1


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


APPENDIX G: AIRCRAFT RUNWAY LENGTH INFORMATION

Aircraft Weight (lbs.)

Engine Type No. Seats

Reference Field

Length

Adjusted Field

Length

Movements

in 2010a

Reference Field Length < 2,000 ft (610m) Piper Super Cub PA-18 2,888 Piston 1 2 410 504 116Cessna 175 Skylark 2,400 Piston 1 650 800 22Lake Buchaneer LA-4 2,694 Piston 1 660 812 284Cessna 182 Skylane 3,100 Piston 1 705 867 220Piper Cherokee PA-28 2,227 Piston 1 725 892 386Cessna 177 Cardinal 4,409 Piston 1 845 1,040 195Navajo PA-31 6,793 Piston 2 930 1,112 85BN Islander 6,614 Piston 1 1,160 1,392 2Cessna 180 8,494 Turbo Prop 1 1,204 1,445 112Piper Tri-Pacer PA-22 2,000 Piston 1 1,210 1,489 7Lancair Columbia 300 3,400 Piston 1 4 1,250 1,415 0Beaver -DHC 2 5,294 Piston 1 1,250 1,500 16Cessna 172 2,312 Piston 1 1,250 1,500 2,663Diamond Katana 1,653 Piston 1 1,263 1,554 0Cessna 152 1,670 Piston 1 1,340 1,608 239Found Bush Hawk FBA2 3,800 Piston 1 1,350 1,661 31Cessna Skylane-182 3,100 Piston 1 4 1,350 1,839 220Cessna 185 3,311 Piston 1 1,365 1,638 152Extra EA 500 4,740 Turbo Prop 1 6 1,400 1,560 0Turbo Beaver 8,017 Turbo Prop 1 1,400 1,680 0Beechcraft B80 8,017 Piston 2 1,400 1,680 0Cirrus Sr22 3,400 Piston 1 4 1,570 1,974 210Beechcraft C90 10,099 Turbo Prop 2 1,600 1,920 55Otter DHC -3 8,000 Piston 1 1,630 1,956 0Cessna 310 5,419 Piston 2 1,700 2,040 44Extra Flugzeugbau GmbH 400 4,407 Piston 1 6 1,705 2,543 0Piper Saratoga PA-32-301 3,600 Piston 1 5 1,759 2,309 22Cessna 340 5,996 Piston 2 1,760 2,104 9Adams A500 6,300 Piston 2 6 1,800 1,880 0Aero / Ibis AE 270 8,280 Turbo Prop 1 7 1,805 2,229 0Cessna Stationair CE-206H 3,600 Piston 1 6 1,850 2,392 188Beechcraft 200 12,516 Turbo Prop 2 1,900 2,280 62Raytheon/Beech Bonanza A36 3,650 Piston 1 5 1,913 2,723 10

PED-9-2013-4B

G‐2


MUSKOKA AIRPORT




Reference Field

Length

Adjusted Field

Length

Movements

in 2010a

Reference Field Length < 3,000 ft (915m) Short SC 7-3 12,500 Turbo Prop 2 2,020 2,424 0Cessna Caravan CE-208-675 8,000 Turbo Prop 1 10 2,053 2,352 230Cirrus SR 20 3,000 Piston 1 4 2,063 2,566 51Socata Trinidad GT TB-20 3,086 Piston 1 4 2,083 2,542 0Piper Malibu - PA-46-350 4,340 Piston 1 5 2,090 2,385 4Cessna 414 6,647 Piston 2 2,185 2,612 2Twin Otter DHC-6 12,500 Turbo Prop 2 2,280 2,736 6Pilatus PC-12 9,920 Turbo Prop 1 8 2,300 2,813 979Cessna Grand Caravan CE-208B 8,750 Turbo Prop 1 10 2,420 2,822 230Piper Meridian PA-46-500 5,092 Turbo Prop 1 5 2,438 2,865 2Mooney Ovation M-20S 3,368 Piston 1 4 2,500 2,982 0Piper Seneca PA-34-220 4,750 Piston 2 5 2,510 2,690 51Fairchild Dornier 228-212 14,000 Turbo Prop 2 19 2,600 3,610 0Socata TBM 700 6,614 Turbo Prop 1 6 2,840 3,332 2

PED-9-2013-4B

G‐3


MUSKOKA AIRPORT




Reference Field

Length

Adjusted Field

Length

Movements in

2010a Reference Field Length < 4,000 ft (1,220m)

Raytheon Baron 58 5,500 Piston 2 5 3,000 3,446 43Mitsubishi MU-2 11,574 Turbo Prop 2 3,000 3,587 20Bombardier DH7-150 45,000 Turbo Prop 4 50 3,000 3,850 2Bombardier DH8-100 34,400 Turbo Prop 2 40 3,100 3,804 20Bombardier DH8 Q200 36,300 Turbo Prop 2 40 3,146 3,448 7Citation Ultra 16,583 Jet 2 3,160 3,834 76Bombardier DH8-200 36,200 Turbo Prop 2 40 3,255 3,893 7Citation Mustang C510 11,861 Jet 2 3,275 3,973 2Cessna CJ1 CE-525 10,600 Jet 2 7 3,280 4,200 25C130 Hercules 153,770 Turbo Prop 4 3,290 3,883 82Raytheon King Air 350 15,000 Turbo Prop 2 10/15 3,300 4,024 24Bombardier CL-415 Water Bomber 43,700 Turbo Prop 2 n/a 3,400 3,844 15Raytheon King Air B200 12,500 Turbo Prop 2 8/15 3,411 3,767 62Cessna CJ2 CE-525A 12,375 Jet 2 8 3,420 3,984 0Cessna CJ3 CE-525B 13,870 Jet 2 8 3,450 4,046 2Cessna Citation Encore CE-560 16,630 Jet 2 9/11 3,490 4,278 76Learjet 35 17,000 Jet 2 3,500 4,185 4Fairchild Dornier 328-110 31,000 Turbo Prop 2 33 3,570 4,274 0Cessna Citation Excel CE-560-Xl 20,000 Jet 2 10 3,590 4,346 49Cessna Bravo CE-550 14,800 Jet 2 9/11 3,600 4,258 27Bombardier DH8-300 41,000 Turbo Prop 2 56 3,600 4,552 8Raytheon King Air C90 10,110 Turbo Prop 2 6/12 3,650 4,223 0Bombardier DH8 Q300 43,000 Turbo Prop 2 50/56 3,681 4,057 8Cessna Citation Sovereign CE-680 30,000 Jet 2 11/12 3,694 4,234 0Raytheon Premier 1-390 12,500 Jet 2 7 3,792 4,893 10Shorts 330-200 22,850 Turbo Prop 2 30 3,800 4,600 0Raytheon/Beech 1900D 17,120 Turbo Prop 2 14/19 3,813 4,280 386Raytheon Beechjet BE-400A 16,300 Jet 2 9 3,906 4,742 26Sino SJ30-2 13,500 Jet 2 6 3,993 4,340 0

PED-9-2013-4B

G‐4


MUSKOKA AIRPORT




Reference Field

Length

Adjusted Field

Length

Movements

in 2010a

Reference Field Length < 5,000 ft (1,525m) Beechjet 400 16,292 Jet 2 4,000 4,783 26ATR 72-500 49,600 Turbo Prop 2 74 4,010 4,326 2Embraer 110 Bandeirante 12,980 Turbo Prop 2 19 4,050 4,674 0Saab 2000 50,160 Turbo Prop 2 50 4,215 4,861 0Piaggio Avanti P180 11,550 Turbo Prop 2 8/9 4,250 4,716 73Shorts 360-300 27,000 Turbo Prop 2 36 4,280 4,450 0Bombardier Lear 40 LR-45 20,350 Jet 2 7 4,285 5,283 0ATR 42-500 41,000 Turbo Prop 2 50/60 4,300 4,780 0Saab 340 28,940 Turbo Prop 2 34 4,330 4,648 0Bombardier Lear 45 LR-45 20,500 Jet 2 9 4,350 5,380 10Cessna Caravan II RA-406 9,850 Turbo Prop 1 9/13 4,363 4,898 0Fairchild Dornier 328Jet 34,500 Jet 2 35 4,535 5,241 0Fairchild Dornier Envoy 3 Corp 34,524 Jet 2 20/32 4,535 5,249 0Bombardier DH8 Q400 64,500 Turbo Prop 2 78 4,580 5,104 2Falcon 50 40,137 Jet 2 4,890 5,772 8Falcon 900 (& 900 EX) 46,038 Jet 2 4,935 5,825 12Citation VI 21,825 Jet 2 4,950 5,842 8Challenger 300 38,845 Jet 2 4,950 5,842 20

PED-9-2013-4B

G‐5


MUSKOKA AIRPORT




Reference Field

Length

Adjusted

Field Length

Movements

in 2010a

Reference Field Length < 6,000 ft (1,830m) Learjet 55 21,492 Jet 2 5,000 5,901 2Raytheon Hawker 800XP 28,000 Jet 2 11/12 5,032 6,041 36Bombardier Lear 45XR LR-45 21,500 Jet 2 9 5,060 5,428 10

Embraer 120 Brasilia 26,400Turbo Prop 2 30 5,120 5,340 0

Citation X 35,758 Jet 2 5,200 6,138 29Hawker 700 26,946 Jet 2 5,350 6,315 2Hawker 1000 33,069 Jet 2 5,350 6,315 8Gulfstream G100 1125 24,650 Jet 2 9 5,395 6,543 0Gulfstream 3 68,194 Jet 2 5,400 6,374 2Falcon 2000 40,999 Jet 2 5,440 6,421 8Bombardier Lear 60 LR-60 23,500 Jet 2 8/10 5,450 6,506 6Galaxy GALX 35,450 Jet 2 5,500 6,492 8Westwind WW24 22,850 Jet 2 5,500 6,492 2Astrajet ASTR 24,649 Jet 2 5,500 6,492 0Gulfstream 2 65,637 Jet 2 5,500 6,492 0G150 Gulfstream Galaxy 26,014 Jet 2 5,500 6,492 6G200 Gulfsteam Galaxy 35,450 Jet 2 5,500 6,492 8Embraer ERJ-135 44,092 Jet 2 37 5,650 6,669 0Challenger 600 43,573 Jet 2 5,699 6,727 92Challenger 601 43,573 Jet 2 5,699 6,727 92Challenger 604 43,573 Jet 2 5,699 6,727 92Gulfstream 4 73,199 Jet 2 5,700 6,728 12

Raytheon/Beech 1900C 16,600Turbo Prop 2 19 5,730 6,470 386

Regional Jet CRJ2 50,705 Jet 2 50 5,800 6,846 26Gulfstream 5 91,190 Jet 2 5,910 6,976 6



Reference Field

Length

Adjusted

Field Length

Movements

in 2010a

Reference Field Length > 6,000 ft (1,830m) Gulfstream 650 99,647 Jet 2 6,000 7,082 0B737 152,116 Jet 2 150 6,500 7,672 2A320 Airbus 171,958 Jet 2 150 6,500 7,672 0MD 87 140,212 Jet 2 109 7,700 9,088 2Note: a. Itinerant Movements at YQA in 2011 by aircraft type

PED-9-2013-4B

H‐1


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


APPENDIX H: NEW HEIGHT GUIDANCE RE WIND TURBULENCE

As a result of a number of incidents at Amsterdam (Schipol) Airport combined with concern relating to encroaching development at the airport, the Amsterdam Airport Authority undertook some significant and ground breaking research into the effect of tall buildings in the vicinity of runway ends. The research, which was both theoretical in nature and then followed up with actual field trials using a building mock‐up and test flights with a 747 and a Fokker 100, showed that additional protection over and above the typical International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Obstacle Limitation Surfaces was required to protect against wind turbulence created by tall buildings in the vicinity of runway ends. Subsequent to this work in 2006, the Amsterdam Airport has adopted the proposed guidelines to protect against wind turbulence effects. Further to this, ICAO has issued this information as guidance to member states and indicated that they are studying the information. The guidance issued suggests that the height of development in the vicinity of runway ends be limited to less than a 1:35 slope emanating from the runway threshold and centreline and extending down the sides of the runway for up to 1500m. The implications of this guidance are illustrated in Figure H‐1, where the height contours are shown around the runway ends and down the sides of the runway. Figure H‐1: New Thinking on Restrictions Around Runway Ends due to Wind Turbulence Effects

PED-9-2013-4B

H‐2


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


We should note that this wind turbulence information is just guidance issued for information for member states to be aware of given the concerns. ICAO has not adopted any standards relating to this information and neither has any other national jurisdiction responsible for airports. The only airport to adopt these as standards has been the Amsterdam Airport, as this is where the problem originated and this is where the key concern has been identified. However, given the potential implications of this information, we know that other progressive airports and professionals are definitely considering this information. We also feel that this definitely warrants due consideration in the case of development at the Muskoka Airport, especially given the fact that smaller aircraft will be more susceptible to these wind turbulence effects than larger aircraft . More discussion is provided following. Let’s look at the issue of Transport Canada/ICAO standards with respect to Obstacle Limitation Surfaces versus the new wind turbulence information as developed for Amsterdam/Schipol Airport and under review by ICAO. Figure H‐2 illustrates a comparison. In the top portion of this figure we see a typical OLS as would be implemented for a large airport like Schipol (or Toronto‐Pearson, Montreal‐Dorval, etc). In this case we assume a precision approach runway environment where the runway strip width would be 150m and the transitional surface would slope at 1:7. Figure H‐2: Comparison ‐ Hangar Locations Affected by OLS Restrictions vs Wind Turbulence Guidance

PED-9-2013-4B

H‐3


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


A typical hangar to house an A320 aircraft (at 15m high), as is being considered for MAR at Muskoka, would be located about 300m from the runway centreline to allow room for a taxiway, associated clearances and room to park an aircraft in front of the hangar. As shown, this hangar would not even be limited by the transitional surface at this location, as the aircraft tail on the apron would be more critical and this would actually force the hangar further away and lower than the transitional surface. Per the new wind turbulence guidance, this hangar, if located as shown, should only be about 8‐9m high. In fact, a 15m high hangar, per these new guidelines should be about 525m (35 x 15) from the runway centreline and not 300m. This difference between the OLS and wind turbulence guidance, is significant enough in this case, but becomes even more significant at smaller airports, as illustrated in the bottom portion of this same figure. At a smaller airport, like Muskoka, where the runway would be non‐precision instead of precision, the runway strip would be 75m instead of 150m, and the taxiway clearances would also be less, so that per the OLS, the same 15m hangar could be closer to 200m from runway centreline vs 300m in the case of precision. This difference between the location allowed per the OLS and that permitted re wind turbulence is much greater. This should make us more concerned about wind turbulence effects at smaller airports than would be the case at larger airports. And given the fact that smaller aircraft are even more susceptible to wind turbulence, this should become an even greater issue at smaller airports. Figure H‐3 shows another look at a similar 15m hangar in an environment similar to Muskoka. Again, if the runway were non‐precision, with a 75m runway strip and with a 1:7 transitional surface, per the OLS it would be possible to locate a 15m hangar as close as 175m from runway centreline, compared to 525m per the wind turbulence guidance. This would still leave room for a parallel Code C taxiway and an apron in front of the hangar to park an A320 (though the aircraft tail would need to be towards the hangar and not the runway). Figure H‐3: Another Comparison of Hangar Locations Affected by OLS Restrictions vs Wind Turbulence Guidance

PED-9-2013-4B

H‐4


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


The implications of this wind turbulence guidance information are illustrated below in Figure H‐4 superimposed on the original plan developed by staff for the eastside development – labelled here as Plan A. In this figure, it is evident that the contours associated with Runway 18‐36 (shown in solid green) would limit the height of buildings along the west edge of the development to only about 5+m and the buildings along the east side to about 10+m. At the same time, contours associated with Runway 09‐27 (shown in dashed purple) would limit hangars along the south edge of the subdivision to about 5m, those in the middle to about 10m and those at the north end to less than 15m. However, when the combined effect of the contours from both runways is considered, there could effectively be no hangars taller than about 10+m. Consequently this plan could not satisfy a basic requirement to provide hangars with at least 15m height in order to accommodate MRO requirements such as MAR. Figure H‐4: Wind Turbulence Guidance Contours for Plan A

Applying this wind turbulence guidance to an alternate plan developed by SNC (referred to as Plan B), as illustrated in Figure H‐5, improves the situation somewhat. In this case, maybe 3 lots are created in the SW corner of the Westside development that could permit hangars up to about 15m. But even here the wind turbulence guidance is very restrictive and there are no lots where on the east side that could accommodate hangars of up to 15m. As a consequence, we chose to revisit this information and given our commitment to this concept given our understanding of its importance to small airports ‐ ask – how much can we relax the suggested wind

PED-9-2013-4B

H‐5


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


turbulence guidelines without significantly compromising these? And ‐ how much do we need to change these to be able get achieve the developments heights that are anticipated at the Muskoka airport? Figure H‐5: Wind Turbulence Guidance Contours for Plan B

In response to the first question, our experience with fluid dynamics, flow analysis and even electronic interference issues, tells us that we can increase the 1:35 slope by probably 20‐30% before we should see any discernible impacts on the wind turbulence. A 1:25 slope would be the equivalent of such an increase. This is shown as a dashed blue line in Figure H‐6 below, where the 15m maximum height hangar is shown to move from 525m from the runway with the 1:35 slope to about 375m from the runway with a 1:25 slope. By comparison, at a conventional 1:7 with typical development, this 15m bldg would probably be over 200m from the runway, as illustrated in an earlier chart above (H‐2). Or in the case of at a larger airport with precision zoning, this might be a closer to 300m. The implications of using a compromise 1:25 slope consequently puts these high buildings at about halfway between the TC OLS standard and that associated with the wind turbulence information. Or, for larger airports, this compromise would result in a similar location for these hangars (300m vs 375m). In terms of the second question, in the previous concepts, we showed that there were a lot of areas where development would be restricted to about 10‐12m. Raising the limits by 20‐30% should create sufficient areas where development heights could approach 15m. These will be illustrated in the following options.

PED-9-2013-4B

H‐6


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure H‐6: Comparison of Hangar Locations Affected by OLS Restrictions vs Adjusted Wind Turbulence Guidance

Figure H‐7 illustrates the revised 1:25 contours for Plan A‐R. We have added buildings to each lot that are coded with respect to max heights: less than 10m, between 10 and 15 and more than 15m. While these contours would allow greater development heights, there are still no lots that would allow buildings of up to 15m, especially taking into account the DF restrictions, also noted in the figure. And there are only about 4‐5 lots permitting building of over 10m, which is an improvement over using the 1:35 contours, but still not enough of an improvement to allow the 15m hangars that larger MROs like MAR would require.

Figure H‐8 illustrates the effects of the revised 1:25 contours on Plan B‐R. In this case, newly created “field lots” just south of the existing Muskoka Aircraft Refinishing (MAR) buildings could be developed to over 15m in height (a total of 4 lots in the western part of this area), while the remaining area could be over 10m, if necessary. We have used the same coding with hatched buildings as in the previous slide. In the eastside lands, there are now about 3 lots that could be developed at over 15m, with an additional 6 at over 10m but less than 15. The remaining lots would need to be less than 10m, which would still be quite adequate for many of the envisioned uses at the airport, as most of these buildings are generally less than 10m now. At this point it is useful to discuss the implications of not implementing the above wind turbulence guidelines. For simplicity, we will focus our discussions on the recommended development plan B‐R. Without getting into detail with respect to the theory and the detailed processes of how wind turbulence effects occur, wind turbulence is usually created when winds blow over and / or around buildings. This causes lower pressures on the downstream side of the buildings that then cause turbulence on this side. These wind turbulence effects can result in serious downdrafts, that in the case of aircraft, can slam these aircraft right into the ground on approach (or even on departure).

PED-9-2013-4B

H‐7


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


Figure H‐7: Wind Turbulence Guidance Contours for Plan A‐R

Figure H‐8: Wind Turbulence Guidance Contours for Plan B‐R

PED-9-2013-4B

H‐8


MUSKOKA AIRPORT


To get a better sense of this discussion, let’s look at Figure H‐8. The predominant runway used at Muskoka is Runway 36 with approaches being conducted from the south and departures to the north. Winds at the airport frequently blow from the west and northwest as illustrated in the wind rose charts contained in Appendix K. When these winds blow over the existing MAR buildings located to the west side of the runway, and in the future, the proposed new buildings to the south of those already existing, wind turbulence effects will be generated that will have the potential to make an aircraft on final approach to lose altitude and potentially crash short of the runway or be slammed right down into the runway itself, depending on wind speed and direction. For this wind turbulence to be severe enough to cause such a drastic reaction, the wind speed would need to be substantial as well. Without carrying out a detailed analysis, we cannot speculate as to what the “critical” wind speeds would be, but we can say that given the wind directions involved and the speeds from the wind rose, there would be “limited” occurrences of these critical winds when the runway would need to be closed to operations during these events. If an alternate runway is available during these events (such as Runway 27 or the new proposed 30), then it would be a simple matter of using the alternate runway. In a similar fashion, winds blowing from the east over the planned eastside developments would create potential turbulence as well for aircraft approaching on Runway 36. These same winds, blowing across the runway, whether over the Westside developments of the eastside ones, could have turbulence implications for aircraft departing on Runway 18. Runway 30 (the second most available runway direction) would be affected by potential wind turbulence when winds blow from the south and southwest. Such winds would also potentially impact departures on Runway 12. The implications of the wind turbulence issue, if the proposed guidelines are not taken into consideration, would be that there would need to be operational limitations identified that would close the appropriate runway during wind events that could cause significant enough turbulence effects. Given the newness of this information and the limited information currently available, it is difficult to speculate how often these “significant” enough would occur. But our guess would be that these would be “not frequent”. Having said this, safety is of paramount concern and the wind effects are currently not well understood and winds and their turbulent effects are difficult to forecast. Given this, we prefer to err on the side of caution and suggest that it is best to consider these new guidelines than to ignore and face the consequences later. In the development plans that we have recommended, we have considered these effects. However, in considering the effects of wind turbulence, while the proposed plans have looked differently than they would have otherwise looked had we not considered these effects, we do not feel that the airport has lost any development potential as a result. We feel we have been able to satisfy the requirements that we have forecast for the various uses (taking development height into consideration). The only lost “potential” is that we cannot populate the entire airport site with “taller” buildings. And this would not be realistic in any case, as the reality of the “demand” is that there will be demand for a mix of lower buildings in the range of 5‐10m for smaller aircraft, buildings in the 10‐15m range for medium size aircraft and buildings in the 15m+/‐ range for larger aircraft.

PED-9-2013-4B

I‐1



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

APPENDIX I: TYPICAL LOT LAYOUTS

The following show some typical lot layouts at a number of airports to illustrate potential lot sizes for the Muskoka Land Development.

SAMPLE T-HANGAR DEVELOPMENTS SPRINGBANK

The above shows sample T‐hangar developments from a large GA airport in Canada. A combination of smaller to medium sized T‐hangars is shown. These are very typical arrangements common at similar Canadian airports. The hangars can be longer of shorter and would need to be a multiple of the design aircraft, but these are seen to range between 55m and 85m. Corresponding lot sizes would be about 45m‐50m x 100m +/‐ for double width small T‐hangars and about 45m +/‐ x 100m +/‐ for the single larger T‐hangars.

PED-9-2013-4B

I‐2



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

AIRCRAFT HANGARS AT BUTTONVILLE

Here at Buttonville we see lot sizes for corporate private of slightly different sizes, ranging to samller depths of only about 80m due to the layout, but would probably typically be more like 100m to 120m. Lot widths are shown to vary from 40m to 80m.

PED-9-2013-4B

I‐3



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

T-HANGARS AT NANAIMO

At Nanaimo, we see a similar situation to Springbank, with typical lots for T‐hangars being 30m +/‐ wide with depths of 100m +/‐.

PED-9-2013-4B

I‐4



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

CORPORATE AIRCRAFT HANGARS AT CALGARY

The figure above shows some typical corporate hangars at Calgary. Typical lot sizes again tend to show lot depts. Of about 120m with lot widths varying from 60m to 70 and even up to 100m wide, depending on how many aircraft and the size to be accommodated.

PED-9-2013-4B

I‐5



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

SAMPLE B757 AND A321 HANGAR LOTS

In the following pages we attach a discussion on lot sizes at other airports that we had done for a previous client.

PED-9-2013-4B

I‐6



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Notes on Lot Sizing for Commercial Lands at CRIA

Background Paper for

CRIA Commercial Land Development Plan

Prepared by: SNC Lavalin Inc.. For: City of Cranbrook (Project: V2240.65) October 2010

PED-9-2013-4B

I‐7



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Comparative Review

In order to establish appropriate lot sizes to use for this commercial lands development plan, a quick survey was conducted of other similar sized and larger airports. This survey involved a combination of checking of our (PAPI) files from previous work that we had done (using CAD files), as well as using aerial photos available on Google Earth. The airports surveyed, as illustrated below, generally involved mostly BC airports, but do include some info on some small international airports, such as in the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos.

The data below is categorised into airside and landside uses.

Airport Development Type Width (m)

Depth (m) Typical Area (m2)

Airside Uses

Cranbrook Small hangar – private 50 100 5,000

Small hangar – maintenance

60 100 6,000

Small forestry base 60 100 6,000

Kamloops Small hangar – maintenance

50 115 5,750

Small hangar – maintenance

60 115 6,900

Small hangar – general use

70 100 7,000


50 100 5,000


100 80 8,000

Large forestry base 300 200 60,000

“T” Hangars 50 110 5,500

Prince George Small hangar – general use

100 80 8,000


70 80 5,600


70 100 7,000


80 80 6,400

Abbotsford Large aircraft maintenance

230 300 69,000

Mid size hangar 120 100 12,000

Mid size hangar 120 80 9,600

General aviation – flying school

120 150 18,000

“T” Hangars ‐ single 50 60+ 3,000+

“T” Hangars ‐ double 80 60+ 4,800+

Pemberton General airside lots 40 120 4,800

Kelowna Large aircraft maintenance

300 300 90,000

Small hangars/general aviation

100 100 10,000

PED-9-2013-4B

I‐8



MUSKOKA AIRPORT



Small hangars/general aviation

120 100 12,000

Vancouver Fixed based operator (FBO)

160 150 24,000

Fixed based operator (FBO)

120 80 9,600

Helicopter terminal/base 100 150 15,000

Small aircraft maintenance

50 80 4,000

Calgary General use/corporate/FBO

70 110 7,700

General use/corporate/FBO

100 110 11,000


90 110 9,900


60 150 9,000


70 150 10,500


120 150 18,000

Nassau Large FBO 200 180 36,000

(Bahamas) Small FBO 80 120 9.600

Aircraft Maintenance 120 250 30,000

Marsh Harbour Small FBO 120 100 12,000

(Bahamas) Small FBO 200 120 24,000

Small FBO 80 80 6,400

Providenciales Small FBO 150 120 18,000

(Turks&Caicos) Small FBO 100 120 12,000

Small FBO 70 150 10,500

General Landside Uses

Vancouver Small industrial/office combo

50 Variable 5,000+/‐

Small industrial/office combo

60 variable 6,000+/‐

Small warehouse/industrial

80 Variable 8,000+/‐

Small warehouse/industrial

120 Variable 10,000+/‐

Cranbrook Warehouse/industrial 75 140 10,500

Warehouse/industrial 75 75 5.625

Warehouse/industrial 75 110 8,250

Industrial/office 40 100 4,000



Kamloops Warehouse/industrial 70 120 8,400

PED-9-2013-4B

I‐9



MUSKOKA AIRPORT








CONCLUSIONS

Based on the above comparisons, it was established that an appropriate size for typical airside lots for general uses should be in the order of about 50m x 100m (or about 5,000m2 in area). These general uses could accommodate hangars for private or corporate aircraft, aircraft maintenance activities for smaller aircraft. The depth of these lots could also accommodate Fixed Based Operators who would build a hangar and facilities to handle multiple aircraft, but these uses could require several lots in terms of width, depending on the size of the facility. Two lots could provide a total area of about 10,000m2 while 3 lots would provide a total area of 15,000 m2. These sizes are consistent with small FBOs as evidenced in the above table.

With respect to landside lots, typical dimensions for developments in Cranbrook and Kamloops and smaller type developments in Vancouver tended to indicate lot sizes averaging some 4,000m2 to 10,000m2. Most of these tending to be in the middle of this range around 6,000 to 8,000 m2. Frontages varied between 40 and 120m. Based on this data, it suggested that the landside lots be sized at about 8,000m2 +/‐ for warehousing/industrial and for closer to about 6,000m2 for the office/industrial types.

PED-9-2013-4B

J‐1



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

APPENDIX J: FINANCIALS

PED-9-2013-4B

J‐2

Muskoka Airport – Status Quo – Current Rates ‐ Financial Forecasts

STATUS QUO

OPERATING REVENUES 2009 2010 2011 2012 (budget) 2013 f 2014 f 2015 f 2016 f 2017 f 2018 f 2019 f 2020 f 2021 f 2022 f 2023 f 2024 f 2025 f 2026 f 2027 f 2028 f 2029 f 2030 f 2031 f 2032 f 2013-2032Aeronautical Fees - Miscellaneous 17,752$ 24,661$ 16,263$ 16,500$ 17,340$ 17,687$ 18,041$ 18,401$ 18,769$ 19,145$ 19,528$ 19,918$ 20,317$ 20,723$ 21,137$ 21,560$ 21,991$ 22,431$ 22,880$ 23,337$ 23,804$ 24,280$ 24,766$ 25,261$ 421,316$ Fees - Ramp 73,642$ 119,492$ 107,821$ 103,700$ 121,458$ 127,356$ 133,585$ 140,164$ 147,112$ 153,870$ 160,979$ 168,457$ 176,323$ 184,599$ 192,791$ 201,385$ 210,402$ 219,864$ 229,792$ 239,768$ 250,217$ 261,161$ 272,625$ 284,634$ 3,876,541$ Fees - Call-Outs 6,900$ 10,100$ 13,705$ 13,000$ 13,260$ 13,525$ 13,796$ 14,072$ 14,353$ 14,640$ 14,933$ 15,232$ 15,536$ 15,847$ 16,164$ 16,487$ 16,817$ 17,153$ 17,496$ 17,846$ 18,203$ 18,567$ 18,939$ 19,317$ 322,183$ Fuel Sales 1,002,889$ 1,351,198$ 1,585,078$ 1,559,000$ 1,657,314$ 1,761,827$ 1,872,932$ 1,991,042$ 2,116,601$ 2,245,989$ 2,383,287$ 2,528,977$ 2,683,573$ 2,847,620$ 3,017,569$ 3,197,660$ 3,388,500$ 3,590,729$ 3,805,027$ 4,028,440$ 4,264,969$ 4,515,387$ 4,780,508$ 5,061,196$ 61,739,148$

Aeronautical 1,101,183$ 1,505,451$ 1,722,867$ 1,692,200$ 1,809,372$ 1,920,395$ 2,038,353$ 2,163,679$ 2,296,836$ 2,433,644$ 2,578,726$ 2,732,583$ 2,895,749$ 3,068,789$ 3,247,661$ 3,437,093$ 3,637,711$ 3,850,177$ 4,075,195$ 4,309,391$ 4,557,193$ 4,819,395$ 5,096,837$ 5,390,408$ 66,359,188$ Non-Aeronautical -$ Rent 94,669$ 143,020$ 126,681$ 131,000$ 133,620$ 136,292$ 139,018$ 141,799$ 144,635$ 147,527$ 150,478$ 153,487$ 156,557$ 159,688$ 162,882$ 166,140$ 169,462$ 172,852$ 176,309$ 179,835$ 183,432$ 187,100$ 190,842$ 190,842$ 3,242,798$ Sales - Vending Machine 453$ 882$ 653$ 1,000$ 1,020$ 1,040$ 1,061$ 1,082$ 1,104$ 1,126$ 1,149$ 1,172$ 1,195$ 1,219$ 1,243$ 1,268$ 1,294$ 1,319$ 1,346$ 1,373$ 1,400$ 1,428$ 1,457$ 1,486$ 24,783$ Sale of Asset 103,860$ 46,037$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Rent - Airport 9,600$ 9,900$ 10,197$ 10,500$ 10,710$ 10,924$ 11,143$ 11,366$ 11,593$ 11,825$ 12,061$ 12,302$ 12,548$ 12,799$ 13,055$ 13,317$ 13,583$ 13,855$ 14,132$ 14,414$ 14,703$ 14,997$ 15,297$ 15,602$ 260,225$ Recovery of Write-Off 21$ -$

Non-Aeronautical 208,603$ 153,802$ 183,568$ 142,500$ 145,350$ 148,257$ 151,222$ 154,247$ 157,332$ 160,478$ 163,688$ 166,961$ 170,301$ 173,707$ 177,181$ 180,724$ 184,339$ 188,026$ 191,786$ 195,622$ 199,534$ 203,525$ 207,596$ 207,931$ 3,527,806$ Total Operating Revenues Before Grants

1,309,786$ 1,659,253$ 1,906,435$ 1,834,700$ 1,954,722$ 2,068,652$ 2,189,575$ 2,317,926$ 2,454,168$ 2,594,123$ 2,742,414$ 2,899,545$ 3,066,050$ 3,242,495$ 3,424,842$ 3,617,817$ 3,822,050$ 4,038,203$ 4,266,982$ 4,505,013$ 4,756,728$ 5,022,920$ 5,304,433$ 5,598,339$ 69,886,994$

Grants 68,447$ -$ TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 1,309,786$ 1,727,700$ 1,906,435$ 1,834,700$ 1,954,722$ 2,068,652$ 2,189,575$ 2,317,926$ 2,454,168$ 2,594,123$ 2,742,414$ 2,899,545$ 3,066,050$ 3,242,495$ 3,424,842$ 3,617,817$ 3,822,050$ 4,038,203$ 4,266,982$ 4,505,013$ 4,756,728$ 5,022,920$ 5,304,433$ 5,598,339$ 69,886,994$

OPERATING EXPENSESSalaries & Wages (21000) 331,734$ 376,640$ 363,344$ 354,000$ 361,080$ 368,302$ 375,668$ 383,181$ 390,845$ 398,661$ 406,635$ 414,767$ 423,063$ 431,524$ 440,155$ 448,958$ 457,937$ 467,095$ 476,437$ 485,966$ 495,685$ 505,599$ 515,711$ 526,025$ 8,773,294$ Staff Expenses (22000) 7,010$ 3,214$ 4,999$ 7,700$ 7,854$ 8,011$ 8,171$ 8,335$ 8,501$ 8,671$ 8,845$ 9,022$ 9,202$ 9,386$ 9,574$ 9,765$ 9,961$ 10,160$ 10,363$ 10,570$ 10,782$ 10,997$ 11,217$ 11,442$ 190,832$ Office Supplies, Printing, Courier, Computer Services 3,785$ 3,495$ 4,318$ 3,450$ 3,500$ 3,570$ 3,641$ 3,714$ 3,789$ 3,864$ 3,942$ 4,020$ 4,101$ 4,183$ 4,266$ 4,352$ 4,439$ 4,528$ 4,618$ 4,711$ 4,805$ 4,901$ 4,999$ 5,099$ 85,041$ Materials & Equipment 524$ 626$ 3,048$ 4,200$ 4,284$ 4,370$ 4,457$ 4,546$ 4,637$ 4,730$ 4,824$ 4,921$ 5,019$ 5,120$ 5,222$ 5,327$ 5,433$ 5,542$ 5,653$ 5,766$ 5,881$ 5,999$ 6,119$ 6,241$ 104,090$ Utilities (natural gas & electricity) 30,293$ 32,554$ 32,718$ 36,000$ 37,800$ 39,690$ 41,675$ 43,758$ 45,946$ 48,243$ 50,656$ 53,188$ 55,848$ 58,640$ 61,572$ 64,651$ 67,883$ 71,278$ 74,841$ 78,583$ 82,513$ 86,638$ 90,970$ 95,519$ 1,249,893$ Phones 4,417$ 4,067$ 4,326$ 4,660$ 4,753$ 4,848$ 4,945$ 5,044$ 5,145$ 5,248$ 5,353$ 5,460$ 5,569$ 5,681$ 5,794$ 5,910$ 6,028$ 6,149$ 6,272$ 6,397$ 6,525$ 6,656$ 6,789$ 6,925$ 115,490$ Fuel - Fleet & equipment 1,219$ 1,530$ 2,070$ 1,200$ 1,500$ 1,575$ 1,654$ 1,736$ 1,823$ 1,914$ 2,010$ 2,111$ 2,216$ 2,327$ 2,443$ 2,566$ 2,694$ 2,828$ 2,970$ 3,118$ 3,274$ 3,438$ 3,610$ 3,790$ 49,599$ Building Maintenance (supplies & services incl. internal ) 11,149$ 20,615$ 13,600$ 7,120$ 13,000$ 13,260$ 13,525$ 13,796$ 14,072$ 14,353$ 14,640$ 14,933$ 15,232$ 15,536$ 15,847$ 16,164$ 16,487$ 16,817$ 17,153$ 17,496$ 17,846$ 18,203$ 18,567$ 18,939$ 315,866$ Grounds Maintenance (supplies & services) 13,868$ 17,771$ 19,473$ 22,000$ 22,440$ 22,889$ 23,347$ 23,814$ 24,290$ 24,776$ 25,271$ 25,777$ 26,292$ 26,818$ 27,354$ 27,901$ 28,459$ 29,029$ 29,609$ 30,201$ 30,805$ 31,421$ 32,050$ 32,691$ 545,233$ Equipment Repair (parts & labour) 4,079$ 3,784$ 2,475$ 4,000$ 4,080$ 4,162$ 4,245$ 4,330$ 4,416$ 4,505$ 4,595$ 4,687$ 4,780$ 4,876$ 4,973$ 5,073$ 5,174$ 5,278$ 5,383$ 5,491$ 5,601$ 5,713$ 5,827$ 5,944$ 99,133$ Operating Supplies 11,949$ 20,737$ 10,836$ 13,125$ 13,388$ 13,655$ 13,928$ 14,207$ 14,491$ 14,781$ 15,076$ 15,378$ 15,686$ 15,999$ 16,319$ 16,646$ 16,979$ 17,318$ 17,665$ 18,018$ 18,378$ 18,746$ 19,121$ 19,503$ 325,281$ Taxes 20,743$ 33,914$ 28,399$ 25,600$ 26,880$ 28,224$ 29,635$ 31,117$ 32,673$ 34,306$ 36,022$ 37,823$ 39,714$ 41,700$ 43,785$ 45,974$ 48,273$ 50,686$ 53,221$ 55,882$ 58,676$ 61,609$ 64,690$ 67,924$ 888,813$ Insurance 9,984$ 10,086$ 11,900$ 11,300$ 11,865$ 12,458$ 13,081$ 13,735$ 14,422$ 15,143$ 15,900$ 16,695$ 17,530$ 18,407$ 19,327$ 20,293$ 21,308$ 22,373$ 23,492$ 24,666$ 25,900$ 27,195$ 28,555$ 29,982$ 392,328$ Advertising & Promotion 3,075$ 15,199$ 2,416$ 10,700$ 8,000$ 8,160$ 8,323$ 8,490$ 8,659$ 8,833$ 9,009$ 9,189$ 9,373$ 9,561$ 9,752$ 9,947$ 10,146$ 10,349$ 10,556$ 10,767$ 10,982$ 11,202$ 11,426$ 11,654$ 194,379$ Professional Services 22,195$ 31,080$ 40,031$ 39,500$ 40,000$ 40,800$ 41,616$ 42,448$ 43,297$ 44,163$ 45,046$ 45,947$ 46,866$ 47,804$ 48,760$ 49,735$ 50,730$ 51,744$ 52,779$ 53,835$ 54,911$ 56,010$ 57,130$ 58,272$ 971,895$ Communications (contractor) 12,250$ -$ Aircraft Servicing 11,225$ 12,028$ 10,753$ 11,000$ 11,220$ 11,444$ 11,673$ 11,907$ 12,145$ 12,388$ 12,636$ 12,888$ 13,146$ 13,409$ 13,677$ 13,951$ 14,230$ 14,514$ 14,805$ 15,101$ 15,403$ 15,711$ 16,025$ 267,271$ Airport Furniture 23,698$ 28,707$ -$ Finance Charges 9,697$ 13,790$ 18,677$ 20,000$ 20,400$ 20,808$ 21,224$ 21,649$ 22,082$ 22,523$ 22,974$ 23,433$ 23,902$ 24,380$ 24,867$ 25,365$ 25,872$ 26,390$ 26,917$ 27,456$ 28,005$ 28,565$ 29,136$ 29,136$ 495,084$ A/R write-offs 22,989$ 102$ 11,366$ -$ Travel - Fleet 152,370$ 139,563$ 139,717$ 165,896$ 174,191$ 182,900$ 192,045$ 201,648$ 211,730$ 222,317$ 233,432$ 245,104$ 257,359$ 270,227$ 283,738$ 297,925$ 312,822$ 328,463$ 344,886$ 362,130$ 380,237$ 399,249$ 419,211$ 440,171$ 5,759,785$ Inter-departmental charges (mail, office services, finance, computer serv, GIS, drafting) 58,600$ 74,332$ 77,100$ 94,605$ 96,497$ 98,427$ 100,396$ 102,403$ 104,452$ 106,541$ 108,671$ 110,845$ 113,062$ 115,323$ 117,629$ 119,982$ 122,382$ 124,829$ 127,326$ 129,872$ 132,470$ 135,119$ 137,822$ 140,578$ 2,344,626$ Admin - Planning 1,800$ 37,900$ 38,700$ 47,800$ 50,000$ 51,000$ 52,020$ 53,060$ 54,122$ 55,204$ 56,308$ 57,434$ 58,583$ 59,755$ 60,950$ 62,169$ 63,412$ 64,680$ 65,974$ 67,293$ 68,639$ 70,012$ 71,412$ 72,841$ 1,214,868$ Aviation Fuel (cost of sales) 764,554$ 1,071,521$ 1,307,138$ 1,273,400$ 1,353,703$ 1,439,070$ 1,529,821$ 1,626,295$ 1,728,852$ 1,834,537$ 1,946,682$ 2,065,683$ 2,191,958$ 2,325,952$ 2,464,767$ 2,611,867$ 2,767,746$ 2,932,928$ 3,107,968$ 3,290,452$ 3,483,651$ 3,688,194$ 3,904,746$ 4,134,013$ 50,428,885$

1,520,957$ 1,953,255$ 2,147,404$ 2,158,506$ 2,266,215$ 2,377,399$ 2,494,862$ 2,618,979$ 2,750,150$ 2,885,458$ 3,028,280$ 3,179,053$ 3,338,243$ 3,506,343$ 3,680,505$ 3,864,246$ 4,058,115$ 4,262,693$ 4,478,597$ 4,703,477$ 4,940,667$ 5,190,868$ 5,454,818$ 5,732,715$ 74,811,684$ OPERATING INCOME OVER EXPENSES (incl. sale of assets) 211,171-$ 225,555-$ 240,969-$ 323,806-$ 311,493-$ 308,747-$ 305,287-$ 301,054-$ 295,982-$ 291,336-$ 285,866-$ 279,508-$ 272,194-$ 263,848-$ 255,664-$ 246,429-$ 236,065-$ 224,490-$ 211,616-$ 198,464-$ 183,940-$ 167,948-$ 150,385-$ 134,376-$ 4,924,690-$

OPERATING INCOME OVER EXPENSES (excl. sale of assets) 107,311-$ 225,555-$ 194,932-$ 323,806-$ 311,493-$ 308,747-$ 305,287-$ 301,054-$ 295,982-$ 291,336-$ 285,866-$ 279,508-$ 272,194-$ 263,848-$ 255,664-$ 246,429-$ 236,065-$ 224,490-$ 211,616-$ 198,464-$ 183,940-$ 167,948-$ 150,385-$ 134,376-$ 4,924,690-$

Capex -$ 175,000-$ -$ 4,161,600-$ -$ -$ -$ 101,355-$ -$ 585,830-$ 119,509-$ -$ 124,337-$ 63,412-$ -$ 131,948-$ 538,347-$ -$ -$ 1,428,246-$ -$ 7,429,585-$

Cash Flow 211,171-$ 225,555-$ 240,969-$ 323,806-$ 486,493-$ 308,747-$ 4,466,887-$ 301,054-$ 295,982-$ 291,336-$ 387,221-$ 279,508-$ 858,023-$ 383,357-$ 255,664-$ 370,766-$ 299,477-$ 224,490-$ 343,564-$ 736,811-$ 183,940-$ 167,948-$ 1,578,631-$ 134,376-$ 12,354,275-$

NPV (2013-32) 6,448,198-$

AIRPORT'S PRESENTATION FORMAT

PED-9-2013-4B

J‐3

Muskoka Airport – Medium Growth – Current Rates ‐ Financial Forecasts

MEDIUM GROWTH


Aeronautical 1,101,183$ 1,505,451$ 1,722,867$ 1,692,200$ 1,836,517$ 1,979,259$ 2,133,357$ 2,299,726$ 2,479,379$ 2,671,780$ 2,879,372$ 3,103,364$ 3,345,059$ 3,606,185$ 3,825,022$ 4,057,250$ 4,303,694$ 4,565,225$ 4,842,849$ 5,114,353$ 5,401,259$ 5,704,472$ 6,024,865$ 6,363,448$ 76,536,435$ Non-AeronauticalRent 94,669$ 143,020$ 126,681$ 131,000$ 133,620$ 136,292$ 139,018$ 141,799$ 144,635$ 147,527$ 150,478$ 153,487$ 156,557$ 159,688$ 162,882$ 166,140$ 169,462$ 172,852$ 176,309$ 179,835$ 183,432$ 187,100$ 190,842$ 190,842$ 3,242,798$ Land Lease - Incremental 8,294$ 8,460$ 8,630$ 13,203$ 13,467$ 13,737$ 14,011$ 14,292$ 14,577$ 14,869$ 15,166$ 15,470$ 15,779$ 16,095$ 186,051$ AMC - Incremental -$ 16,718$ 17,052$ 17,393$ 17,741$ 18,096$ 33,224$ 33,888$ 34,566$ 58,762$ 59,937$ 61,136$ 62,359$ 63,606$ 64,878$ 66,175$ 67,499$ 68,849$ 70,226$ 71,630$ 903,733$ Sales - Vending Machine 453$ 882$ 653$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,020$ 1,040$ 1,061$ 1,082$ 1,104$ 1,126$ 1,149$ 1,172$ 1,195$ 1,219$ 1,243$ 1,268$ 1,294$ 1,319$ 1,346$ 1,373$ 1,400$ 1,428$ 1,457$ 24,297$ Sale of Asset 103,860$ 46,037$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Land Sales - Incremental -$ 386,155$ 170,539$ 271,465$ 828,159$ Rent - Airport 9,600$ 9,900$ 10,197$ 10,500$ 10,500$ 10,710$ 10,924$ 11,143$ 11,366$ 11,593$ 11,825$ 12,061$ 12,302$ 12,548$ 12,799$ 13,055$ 13,317$ 13,583$ 13,855$ 14,132$ 14,414$ 14,703$ 14,997$ 15,297$ 255,122$ Recovery of Write-Off 21$ -$


1,309,786$ 1,659,253$ 1,906,435$ 1,834,700$ 1,981,637$ 2,530,154$ 2,301,392$ 2,471,121$ 2,654,202$ 2,850,100$ 3,254,857$ 3,312,409$ 3,558,285$ 4,123,047$ 4,075,327$ 4,312,561$ 4,564,111$ 4,830,851$ 5,113,787$ 5,390,710$ 5,683,143$ 5,991,994$ 6,318,137$ 6,658,768$ 81,976,596$

Grants 68,447$ TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 1,309,786$ 1,727,700$ 1,906,435$ 1,834,700$ 1,981,637$ 2,530,154$ 2,301,392$ 2,471,121$ 2,654,202$ 2,850,100$ 3,254,857$ 3,312,409$ 3,558,285$ 4,123,047$ 4,075,327$ 4,312,561$ 4,564,111$ 4,830,851$ 5,113,787$ 5,390,710$ 5,683,143$ 5,991,994$ 6,318,137$ 6,658,768$ 81,976,596$

-$ OPERATING EXPENSES -$ Salaries & Wages (21000) 331,734$ 376,640$ 363,344$ 354,000$ 361,080$ 368,302$ 375,668$ 383,181$ 390,845$ 398,661$ 406,635$ 414,767$ 423,063$ 431,524$ 440,155$ 448,958$ 457,937$ 467,095$ 476,437$ 485,966$ 495,685$ 505,599$ 515,711$ 526,025$ 8,773,294$ Staff Expenses (22000) 7,010$ 3,214$ 4,999$ 7,700$ 7,854$ 8,011$ 8,171$ 8,335$ 8,501$ 8,671$ 8,845$ 9,022$ 9,202$ 9,386$ 9,574$ 9,765$ 9,961$ 10,160$ 10,363$ 10,570$ 10,782$ 10,997$ 11,217$ 11,442$ 190,832$ Office Supplies, Printing, Courier, Computer Services 3,785$ 3,495$ 4,318$ 3,450$ 3,500$ 3,570$ 3,641$ 3,714$ 3,789$ 3,864$ 3,942$ 4,020$ 4,101$ 4,183$ 4,266$ 4,352$ 4,439$ 4,528$ 4,618$ 4,711$ 4,805$ 4,901$ 4,999$ 5,099$ 85,041$ Materials & Equipment 524$ 626$ 3,048$ 4,200$ 4,284$ 4,370$ 4,457$ 4,546$ 4,707$ 4,801$ 4,897$ 4,995$ 5,095$ 6,132$ 6,255$ 6,380$ 6,507$ 6,637$ 7,021$ 7,161$ 7,304$ 7,547$ 7,698$ 7,852$ 118,645$ Utilities (natural gas & electricity) 30,293$ 32,554$ 32,718$ 36,000$ 37,800$ 39,690$ 41,675$ 43,758$ 45,946$ 48,243$ 50,656$ 53,188$ 55,848$ 58,640$ 61,572$ 64,651$ 67,883$ 71,278$ 74,841$ 78,583$ 82,513$ 86,638$ 90,970$ 95,519$ 1,249,893$ Phones 4,417$ 4,067$ 4,326$ 4,660$ 4,753$ 4,848$ 4,945$ 5,044$ 5,145$ 5,248$ 5,353$ 5,460$ 5,569$ 5,681$ 5,794$ 5,910$ 6,028$ 6,149$ 6,272$ 6,397$ 6,525$ 6,656$ 6,789$ 6,925$ 115,490$ Fuel - Fleet & equipment 1,219$ 1,530$ 2,070$ 1,200$ 1,500$ 1,576$ 1,656$ 1,740$ 1,828$ 1,920$ 2,017$ 2,119$ 2,226$ 2,338$ 2,456$ 2,580$ 2,710$ 2,846$ 2,990$ 3,140$ 3,298$ 3,464$ 3,638$ 3,821$ 49,863$ Building Maintenance (supplies & services incl. internal ) 11,149$ 20,615$ 13,600$ 7,120$ 13,000$ 13,261$ 13,527$ 13,799$ 14,076$ 14,358$ 14,646$ 14,940$ 15,240$ 15,546$ 15,858$ 16,176$ 16,501$ 16,832$ 17,169$ 17,514$ 17,865$ 18,223$ 18,589$ 18,962$ 316,083$ Grounds Maintenance (supplies & services) 13,868$ 17,771$ 19,473$ 22,000$ 22,440$ 22,890$ 23,349$ 23,817$ 24,294$ 24,781$ 25,277$ 25,784$ 26,301$ 26,828$ 27,365$ 27,914$ 28,473$ 29,043$ 29,625$ 30,219$ 30,824$ 31,442$ 32,072$ 32,714$ 545,451$ Equipment Repair (parts & labour) 4,079$ 3,784$ 2,475$ 4,000$ 4,080$ 4,163$ 4,247$ 4,333$ 4,420$ 4,510$ 4,601$ 4,694$ 4,789$ 4,886$ 4,985$ 5,085$ 5,188$ 5,293$ 5,400$ 5,509$ 5,620$ 5,733$ 5,849$ 5,967$ 99,351$ Operating Supplies 11,949$ 20,737$ 10,836$ 13,125$ 13,388$ 13,655$ 13,928$ 14,207$ 14,491$ 14,781$ 15,076$ 15,378$ 15,686$ 15,999$ 16,319$ 16,646$ 16,979$ 17,318$ 17,665$ 18,018$ 18,378$ 18,746$ 19,121$ 19,503$ 325,281$ Taxes 20,743$ 33,914$ 28,399$ 25,600$ 26,880$ 28,224$ 29,635$ 31,117$ 32,673$ 34,306$ 36,022$ 37,823$ 39,714$ 41,700$ 43,785$ 45,974$ 48,273$ 50,686$ 53,221$ 55,882$ 58,676$ 61,609$ 64,690$ 67,924$ 888,813$ Insurance 9,984$ 10,086$ 11,900$ 11,300$ 11,865$ 12,458$ 13,081$ 13,735$ 14,422$ 15,143$ 15,900$ 16,695$ 17,530$ 18,407$ 19,327$ 20,293$ 21,308$ 22,373$ 23,492$ 24,666$ 25,900$ 27,195$ 28,555$ 29,982$ 392,328$ Advertising & Promotion 3,075$ 15,199$ 2,416$ 10,700$ 8,000$ 8,160$ 8,323$ 8,490$ 8,659$ 8,833$ 9,009$ 9,189$ 9,373$ 9,561$ 9,752$ 9,947$ 10,146$ 10,349$ 10,556$ 10,767$ 10,982$ 11,202$ 11,426$ 11,654$ 194,379$ Professional Services 22,195$ 31,080$ 40,031$ 39,500$ 40,000$ 40,800$ 41,616$ 42,448$ 43,297$ 44,163$ 45,046$ 45,947$ 46,866$ 47,804$ 48,760$ 49,735$ 50,730$ 51,744$ 52,779$ 53,835$ 54,911$ 56,010$ 57,130$ 58,272$ 971,895$ Communications (contractor) 12,250$ -$ Aircraft Servicing 11,225$ 12,028$ 10,753$ 11,000$ 11,220$ 11,444$ 11,673$ 11,907$ 12,145$ 12,388$ 12,636$ 12,888$ 13,146$ 13,409$ 13,677$ 13,951$ 14,230$ 14,514$ 14,805$ 15,101$ 15,403$ 15,711$ 16,025$ 267,271$ Airport Furniture 23,698$ 28,707$ -$ Finance Charges 9,697$ 13,790$ 18,677$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,400$ 20,808$ 21,224$ 21,649$ 22,082$ 22,523$ 22,974$ 23,433$ 23,902$ 24,380$ 24,867$ 25,365$ 25,872$ 26,390$ 26,917$ 27,456$ 28,005$ 28,565$ 29,136$ 485,947$ A/R write-offs 22,989$ 102$ 11,366$ -$ Travel - Fleet 152,370$ 139,563$ 139,717$ 165,896$ 174,191$ 182,900$ 192,045$ 201,648$ 211,730$ 222,317$ 233,432$ 245,104$ 257,359$ 270,227$ 283,738$ 297,925$ 312,822$ 328,463$ 344,886$ 362,130$ 380,237$ 399,249$ 419,211$ 440,171$ 5,759,785$ Inter-departmental charges (mail, office services, finance, computer serv, GIS, drafting) 58,600$ 74,332$ 77,100$ 94,605$ 96,497$ 98,427$ 100,396$ 102,403$ 104,452$ 106,541$ 108,671$ 110,845$ 113,062$ 115,323$ 117,629$ 119,982$ 122,382$ 124,829$ 127,326$ 129,872$ 132,470$ 135,119$ 137,822$ 140,578$ 2,344,626$ Admin - Planning 1,800$ 37,900$ 38,700$ 47,800$ 50,000$ 51,000$ 52,020$ 53,060$ 54,122$ 55,204$ 56,308$ 57,434$ 58,583$ 59,755$ 60,950$ 62,169$ 63,412$ 64,680$ 65,974$ 67,293$ 68,639$ 70,012$ 71,412$ 72,841$ 1,214,868$ Aviation Fuel (cost of sales) 764,554$ 1,071,521$ 1,307,138$ 1,273,400$ 1,375,884$ 1,486,616$ 1,606,260$ 1,735,533$ 1,875,210$ 2,025,676$ 2,188,217$ 2,363,799$ 2,553,471$ 2,758,361$ 2,928,688$ 3,109,533$ 3,301,546$ 3,505,414$ 3,721,872$ 3,935,673$ 4,161,756$ 4,400,826$ 4,653,629$ 4,920,954$ 58,608,919$ Additional Staffing Costs 50,000$ 51,000$ 52,020$ 53,060$ 54,122$ 55,204$ 56,308$ 57,434$ 58,583$ 59,755$ 60,950$ 62,169$ 63,412$ 64,680$ 65,974$ 67,293$ 68,639$ 70,012$

1,520,957$ 1,953,255$ 2,147,404$ 2,158,506$ 2,287,996$ 2,424,541$ 2,620,893$ 2,778,805$ 2,948,181$ 3,129,309$ 3,323,584$ 3,532,019$ 3,755,706$ 3,996,762$ 4,203,601$ 4,422,274$ 4,653,488$ 4,897,989$ 5,156,822$ 5,414,309$ 5,685,701$ 5,971,869$ 6,273,442$ 6,591,380$ 84,068,671$ OPERATING INCOME OVER EXPENSES (incl. sale of assets) 211,171-$ 225,555-$ 240,969-$ 323,806-$ 306,359-$ 105,613$ 319,501-$ 307,684-$ 293,979-$ 279,210-$ 68,727-$ 219,609-$ 197,421-$ 126,286$ 128,274-$ 109,713-$ 89,376-$ 67,138-$ 43,036-$ 23,599-$ 2,558-$ 20,125$ 44,695$ 67,389$ 2,092,075-$

OPERATING INCOME OVER EXPENSES (excl. sale of assets) 315,031-$ 225,555-$ 287,006-$ 323,806-$ 306,359-$ 280,542-$ 319,501-$ 307,684-$ 293,979-$ 279,210-$ 239,265-$ 219,609-$ 197,421-$ 145,180-$ 128,274-$ 109,713-$ 89,376-$ 67,138-$ 43,036-$ 23,599-$ 2,558-$ 20,125$ 44,695$ 67,389$ 2,920,234-$

Capex 675,000-$ 918,000-$ 4,161,600-$ -$ 81,182-$ 1,656,121-$ 664,436-$ -$ 585,830-$ 1,553,620-$ -$ 124,337-$ 63,412-$ -$ 131,948-$ 538,347-$ -$ -$ 1,428,246-$ -$ 12,582,080-$

Cash Flow (incl. land sales) 981,359-$ 812,387-$ 4,481,101-$ 307,684-$ 375,161-$ 1,935,331-$ 733,162-$ 219,609-$ 783,250-$ 1,427,335-$ 128,274-$ 234,050-$ 152,789-$ 67,138-$ 174,983-$ 561,946-$ 2,558-$ 20,125$ 1,383,551-$ 67,389$ 14,674,156-$

NPV (2013-32) 8,656,543-$


PED-9-2013-4B

J‐4

Muskoka Airport – High Growth – Current Rates ‐ Financial Forecasts

HIGH GROWTH


Aeronautical 1,101,183$ 1,505,451$ 1,722,867$ 1,692,200$ 1,910,268$ 2,141,659$ 2,401,946$ 2,694,772$ 3,024,506$ 3,316,474$ 3,637,112$ 3,989,252$ 4,376,008$ 4,800,880$ 5,147,922$ 5,520,298$ 5,919,866$ 6,348,619$ 6,808,776$ 7,211,422$ 7,638,025$ 8,090,044$ 8,568,937$ 9,076,337$ 102,623,123$ Non-Aeronautical -$ Rent 94,669$ 143,020$ 126,681$ 131,000$ 133,620$ 136,292$ 139,018$ 141,799$ 144,635$ 147,527$ 150,478$ 153,487$ 156,557$ 159,688$ 162,882$ 166,140$ 169,462$ 172,852$ 176,309$ 179,835$ 183,432$ 187,100$ 190,842$ 190,842$ 3,242,798$ Land Lease - Incremental 7,972$ 1,692$ 11,447$ 12,391$ 33,503$ AMC - Incremental -$ 16,718$ 17,052$ 17,393$ 31,933$ 32,572$ 33,224$ 56,480$ 57,610$ 58,762$ 59,937$ 81,514$ 83,145$ 84,808$ 86,504$ 110,292$ 112,498$ 114,748$ 117,043$ 119,384$ 1,291,617$ Sales - Vending Machine 453$ 882$ 653$ 1,000$ 1,020$ 1,040$ 1,061$ 1,082$ 1,104$ 1,126$ 1,149$ 1,172$ 1,195$ 1,219$ 1,243$ 1,268$ 1,294$ 1,319$ 1,346$ 1,373$ 1,400$ 1,428$ 1,457$ 1,486$ 24,783$ Sale of Asset 103,860$ 46,037$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Land Sales - Incremental -$ 386,155$ 163,916$ 260,924$ -$ 235,360$ 254,762$ 1,301,117$ Rent - Airport 9,600$ 9,900$ 10,197$ 10,500$ 10,710$ 10,924$ 11,143$ 11,366$ 11,593$ 11,825$ 12,061$ 12,302$ 12,548$ 12,799$ 13,055$ 13,317$ 13,583$ 13,855$ 14,132$ 14,414$ 14,703$ 14,997$ 15,297$ 15,602$ 260,225$ Recovery of Write-Off 21$ -$


1,309,786$ 1,659,253$ 1,906,435$ 1,834,700$ 2,055,618$ 2,692,788$ 2,570,220$ 2,866,412$ 3,385,659$ 3,509,524$ 3,834,023$ 4,475,310$ 4,603,918$ 5,033,349$ 5,385,040$ 6,029,345$ 6,187,349$ 6,621,453$ 7,087,066$ 7,784,489$ 7,950,058$ 8,408,317$ 8,893,575$ 9,403,652$ 108,777,166$

Grants 68,447$ -$ TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 1,309,786$ 1,727,700$ 1,906,435$ 1,834,700$ 2,055,618$ 2,692,788$ 2,570,220$ 2,866,412$ 3,385,659$ 3,509,524$ 3,834,023$ 4,475,310$ 4,603,918$ 5,033,349$ 5,385,040$ 6,029,345$ 6,187,349$ 6,621,453$ 7,087,066$ 7,784,489$ 7,950,058$ 8,408,317$ 8,893,575$ 9,403,652$ 108,777,166$

-$ OPERATING EXPENSES -$ Salaries & Wages (21000) 331,734$ 376,640$ 363,344$ 354,000$ 361,080$ 368,302$ 375,668$ 383,181$ 390,845$ 398,661$ 406,635$ 414,767$ 423,063$ 431,524$ 440,155$ 448,958$ 457,937$ 467,095$ 476,437$ 485,966$ 495,685$ 505,599$ 515,711$ 526,025$ 8,773,294$ Staff Expenses (22000) 7,010$ 3,214$ 4,999$ 7,700$ 7,854$ 8,011$ 8,171$ 8,335$ 8,501$ 8,671$ 8,845$ 9,022$ 9,202$ 9,386$ 9,574$ 9,765$ 9,961$ 10,160$ 10,363$ 10,570$ 10,782$ 10,997$ 11,217$ 11,442$ 190,832$ Office Supplies, Printing, Courier, Computer Services 3,785$ 3,495$ 4,318$ 3,450$ 3,500$ 3,570$ 3,641$ 3,714$ 3,789$ 3,864$ 3,942$ 4,020$ 4,101$ 4,183$ 4,266$ 4,352$ 4,439$ 4,528$ 4,618$ 4,711$ 4,805$ 4,901$ 4,999$ 5,099$ 85,041$ Materials & Equipment 524$ 626$ 3,048$ 4,200$ 4,284$ 4,370$ 4,457$ 4,546$ 5,333$ 5,439$ 5,548$ 5,659$ 5,772$ 6,117$ 6,240$ 6,365$ 6,492$ 6,622$ 7,004$ 7,144$ 7,287$ 7,529$ 7,680$ 7,833$ 121,721$ Utilities (natural gas & electricity) 30,293$ 32,554$ 32,718$ 36,000$ 37,800$ 39,690$ 41,675$ 43,758$ 45,946$ 48,243$ 50,656$ 53,188$ 55,848$ 58,640$ 61,572$ 64,651$ 67,883$ 71,278$ 74,841$ 78,583$ 82,513$ 86,638$ 90,970$ 95,519$ 1,249,893$ Phones 4,417$ 4,067$ 4,326$ 4,660$ 4,753$ 4,848$ 4,945$ 5,044$ 5,145$ 5,248$ 5,353$ 5,460$ 5,569$ 5,681$ 5,794$ 5,910$ 6,028$ 6,149$ 6,272$ 6,397$ 6,525$ 6,656$ 6,789$ 6,925$ 115,490$ Fuel - Fleet & equipment 1,219$ 1,530$ 2,070$ 1,200$ 1,500$ 1,575$ 1,654$ 1,736$ 2,097$ 2,202$ 2,312$ 2,427$ 2,549$ 2,780$ 2,919$ 3,065$ 3,219$ 3,380$ 3,680$ 3,864$ 4,057$ 4,315$ 4,531$ 4,758$ 58,619$ Building Maintenance (supplies & services incl. internal ) 11,149$ 20,615$ 13,600$ 7,120$ 13,000$ 13,260$ 13,525$ 13,796$ 16,182$ 16,506$ 16,836$ 17,173$ 17,516$ 18,563$ 18,935$ 19,313$ 19,700$ 20,094$ 21,254$ 21,679$ 22,113$ 22,848$ 23,305$ 23,771$ 369,369$ Grounds Maintenance (supplies & services) 13,868$ 17,771$ 19,473$ 22,000$ 22,440$ 22,889$ 23,347$ 23,814$ 27,933$ 28,492$ 29,062$ 29,643$ 30,236$ 32,043$ 32,684$ 33,338$ 34,005$ 34,685$ 36,687$ 37,421$ 38,170$ 39,439$ 40,228$ 41,032$ 637,587$ Equipment Repair (parts & labour) 4,079$ 3,784$ 2,475$ 4,000$ 4,080$ 4,162$ 4,245$ 4,330$ 4,416$ 4,505$ 4,595$ 4,687$ 4,780$ 4,876$ 4,973$ 5,073$ 5,174$ 5,278$ 5,383$ 5,491$ 5,601$ 5,713$ 5,827$ 5,944$ 99,133$ Operating Supplies 11,949$ 20,737$ 10,836$ 13,125$ 13,388$ 13,655$ 13,928$ 14,207$ 14,491$ 14,781$ 15,076$ 15,378$ 15,686$ 15,999$ 16,319$ 16,646$ 16,979$ 17,318$ 17,665$ 18,018$ 18,378$ 18,746$ 19,121$ 19,503$ 325,281$ Taxes 20,743$ 33,914$ 28,399$ 25,600$ 26,880$ 28,224$ 29,635$ 31,117$ 32,673$ 34,306$ 36,022$ 37,823$ 39,714$ 41,700$ 43,785$ 45,974$ 48,273$ 50,686$ 53,221$ 55,882$ 58,676$ 61,609$ 64,690$ 67,924$ 888,813$ Insurance 9,984$ 10,086$ 11,900$ 11,300$ 11,865$ 12,458$ 13,081$ 13,735$ 14,422$ 15,143$ 15,900$ 16,695$ 17,530$ 18,407$ 19,327$ 20,293$ 21,308$ 22,373$ 23,492$ 24,666$ 25,900$ 27,195$ 28,555$ 29,982$ 392,328$ Advertising & Promotion 3,075$ 15,199$ 2,416$ 10,700$ 8,000$ 8,160$ 8,323$ 8,490$ 8,659$ 8,833$ 9,009$ 9,189$ 9,373$ 9,561$ 9,752$ 9,947$ 10,146$ 10,349$ 10,556$ 10,767$ 10,982$ 11,202$ 11,426$ 11,654$ 194,379$ Professional Services 22,195$ 31,080$ 40,031$ 39,500$ 40,000$ 40,800$ 41,616$ 42,448$ 43,297$ 44,163$ 45,046$ 45,947$ 46,866$ 47,804$ 48,760$ 49,735$ 50,730$ 51,744$ 52,779$ 53,835$ 54,911$ 56,010$ 57,130$ 58,272$ 971,895$ Communications (contractor) 12,250$ -$ Aircraft Servicing 11,225$ 12,028$ 10,753$ 11,000$ 11,220$ 11,444$ 11,673$ 11,907$ 12,145$ 12,388$ 12,636$ 12,888$ 13,146$ 13,409$ 13,677$ 13,951$ 14,230$ 14,514$ 14,805$ 15,101$ 15,403$ 15,711$ 16,025$ 267,271$ Airport Furniture 23,698$ 28,707$ -$ Finance Charges 9,697$ 13,790$ 18,677$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,400$ 20,808$ 21,224$ 21,649$ 22,082$ 22,523$ 22,974$ 23,433$ 23,902$ 24,380$ 24,867$ 25,365$ 25,872$ 26,390$ 26,917$ 27,456$ 28,005$ 28,565$ 29,136$ 485,947$ A/R write-offs 22,989$ 102$ 11,366$ -$ Travel - Fleet 152,370$ 139,563$ 139,717$ 165,896$ 174,191$ 182,900$ 192,045$ 201,648$ 211,730$ 222,317$ 233,432$ 245,104$ 257,359$ 270,227$ 283,738$ 297,925$ 312,822$ 328,463$ 344,886$ 362,130$ 380,237$ 399,249$ 419,211$ 440,171$ 5,759,785$ Inter-departmental charges (mail, office services, finance, computer serv, GIS, drafting) 58,600$ 74,332$ 77,100$ 94,605$ 96,497$ 98,427$ 100,396$ 102,403$ 104,452$ 106,541$ 108,671$ 110,845$ 113,062$ 115,323$ 117,629$ 119,982$ 122,382$ 124,829$ 127,326$ 129,872$ 132,470$ 135,119$ 137,822$ 140,578$ 2,344,626$ Admin - Planning 1,800$ 37,900$ 38,700$ 47,800$ 50,000$ 51,000$ 52,020$ 53,060$ 54,122$ 55,204$ 56,308$ 57,434$ 58,583$ 59,755$ 60,950$ 62,169$ 63,412$ 64,680$ 65,974$ 67,293$ 68,639$ 70,012$ 71,412$ 72,841$ 1,214,868$ Aviation Fuel (cost of sales) 764,554$ 1,071,521$ 1,307,138$ 1,273,400$ 1,435,050$ 1,617,222$ 1,822,518$ 2,053,876$ 2,314,603$ 2,544,899$ 2,798,109$ 3,076,512$ 3,382,616$ 3,719,176$ 3,993,704$ 4,288,495$ 4,605,046$ 4,944,963$ 5,309,970$ 5,628,436$ 5,966,001$ 6,323,812$ 6,703,083$ 7,105,100$ 79,633,190$ Add'l staff costs due development 50,000$ 51,000$ 52,020$ 53,060$ 54,122$ 55,204$ 56,308$ 57,434$ 58,583$ 59,755$ 60,950$ 62,169$ 63,412$ 64,680$ 65,974$ 67,293$ 68,639$ 70,012$

1,520,957$ 1,953,255$ 2,147,404$ 2,158,506$ 2,347,162$ 2,555,142$ 2,837,143$ 3,097,136$ 3,394,211$ 3,655,306$ 3,940,390$ 4,251,789$ 4,592,055$ 4,966,227$ 5,277,448$ 5,610,255$ 5,966,198$ 6,346,943$ 6,756,724$ 7,119,128$ 7,502,261$ 7,908,290$ 8,336,621$ 8,789,548$ 105,249,978$ OPERATING INCOME OVER EXPENSES (incl. sale of assets) 211,171-$ 225,555-$ 240,969-$ 323,806-$ 291,544-$ 137,646$ 266,923-$ 230,724-$ 8,552-$ 145,781-$ 106,367-$ 223,521$ 11,863$ 67,122$ 107,592$ 419,090$ 221,151$ 274,509$ 330,342$ 665,360$ 447,796$ 500,027$ 556,955$ 614,104$ 3,527,188$

OPERATING INCOME OVER EXPENSES (excl. sale of assets) 315,031-$ 225,555-$ 287,006-$ 323,806-$ 291,544-$ 248,509-$ 266,923-$ 230,724-$ 172,468-$ 145,781-$ 106,367-$ 37,403-$ 11,863$ 67,122$ 107,592$ 183,729$ 221,151$ 274,509$ 330,342$ 410,599$ 447,796$ 500,027$ 556,955$ 614,104$ 2,226,070$

Capex 675,000-$ 918,000-$ 4,161,600-$ 1,591,812-$ 622,398-$ -$ 101,355-$ 1,378,423-$ 585,830-$ 119,509-$ -$ 1,367,712-$ 63,412-$ -$ 131,948-$ 1,749,629-$ -$ -$ 1,428,246-$ -$ 14,894,874-$

Cash Flow 966,544-$ 780,354-$ 4,428,523-$ 1,822,536-$ 630,950-$ 145,781-$ 207,721-$ 1,154,902-$ 573,966-$ 52,388-$ 107,592$ 948,622-$ 157,739$ 274,509$ 198,394$ 1,084,268-$ 447,796$ 500,027$ 871,292-$ 614,104$ 11,367,686-$

NPV (2013-32) (incl. sale of assets) 7,353,954-$


PED-9-2013-4B

J‐5

Muskoka Airport – Medium Growth – Increased Rates ‐ Financial Forecasts

MEDIUM GROWTH - BIZ PLAN


Aeronautical 1,101,183$ 1,505,451$ 1,722,867$ 1,692,200$ 1,885,083$ 2,028,678$ 2,183,658$ 2,350,937$ 2,531,533$ 2,725,063$ 2,933,824$ 3,159,027$ 3,401,977$ 3,664,405$ 3,884,925$ 4,118,901$ 4,367,159$ 4,630,574$ 4,910,154$ 5,183,031$ 5,471,360$ 5,776,051$ 6,097,977$ 6,438,152$ 77,742,470$ Non-AeronauticalRent 94,669$ 143,020$ 126,681$ 131,000$ 133,620$ 136,292$ 139,018$ 141,799$ 144,635$ 147,527$ 150,478$ 153,487$ 156,557$ 159,688$ 162,882$ 166,140$ 169,462$ 172,852$ 176,309$ 179,835$ 183,432$ 187,100$ 190,842$ 190,842$ 3,242,798$ Land Lease - Incremental 12,214$ 12,458$ 12,707$ 19,442$ 19,831$ 20,228$ 20,632$ 21,045$ 21,466$ 21,895$ 22,333$ 22,780$ 23,235$ 23,700$ 273,966$ AMC - Incremental -$ 20,020$ 20,420$ 20,829$ 21,245$ 21,670$ 39,786$ 40,582$ 41,394$ 70,369$ 71,777$ 73,212$ 74,676$ 76,170$ 77,693$ 79,247$ 80,832$ 82,449$ 84,098$ 85,780$ 1,082,248$ Sales - Vending Machine 453$ 882$ 653$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 20,000$ Sale of Asset 103,860$ 46,037$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Land Sales - Incremental -$ 567,650$ 250,693$ 399,056$ 1,217,399$ Development Service Fee 17,660$ 28,112$ 45,773$ Airport Development Permit Fee 39,736$ 63,251$ 102,987$ Development Levy 10,244$ 16,306$ 26,549$ Rent - Airport 9,600$ 9,900$ 10,197$ 10,500$ 10,710$ 10,924$ 11,143$ 11,366$ 11,593$ 11,825$ 12,061$ 12,302$ 12,548$ 12,799$ 13,055$ 13,317$ 13,583$ 13,855$ 14,132$ 14,414$ 14,703$ 14,997$ 15,297$ 15,602$ 260,225$ Recovery of Write-Off 21$ -$


1,309,786$ 1,659,253$ 1,906,435$ 1,834,700$ 2,030,413$ 2,764,565$ 2,355,239$ 2,525,930$ 2,710,006$ 2,907,085$ 3,467,696$ 3,378,857$ 3,626,184$ 4,434,429$ 4,153,470$ 4,392,797$ 4,646,513$ 4,915,495$ 5,200,753$ 5,479,422$ 5,773,660$ 6,084,376$ 6,412,449$ 6,755,076$ 84,014,415$

Grants 68,447$ TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 1,309,786$ 1,727,700$ 1,906,435$ 1,834,700$ 2,030,413$ 2,764,565$ 2,355,239$ 2,525,930$ 2,710,006$ 2,907,085$ 3,467,696$ 3,378,857$ 3,626,184$ 4,434,429$ 4,153,470$ 4,392,797$ 4,646,513$ 4,915,495$ 5,200,753$ 5,479,422$ 5,773,660$ 6,084,376$ 6,412,449$ 6,755,076$ 84,014,415$

-$ OPERATING EXPENSES -$ Salaries & Wages (21000) 331,734$ 376,640$ 363,344$ 354,000$ 361,080$ 368,302$ 375,668$ 383,181$ 390,845$ 398,661$ 406,635$ 414,767$ 423,063$ 431,524$ 440,155$ 448,958$ 457,937$ 467,095$ 476,437$ 485,966$ 495,685$ 505,599$ 515,711$ 526,025$ 8,773,294$ Staff Expenses (22000) 7,010$ 3,214$ 4,999$ 7,700$ 7,854$ 8,011$ 8,171$ 8,335$ 8,501$ 8,671$ 8,845$ 9,022$ 9,202$ 9,386$ 9,574$ 9,765$ 9,961$ 10,160$ 10,363$ 10,570$ 10,782$ 10,997$ 11,217$ 11,442$ 190,832$ Office Supplies, Printing, Courier, Computer Services 3,785$ 3,495$ 4,318$ 3,450$ 3,500$ 3,570$ 3,641$ 3,714$ 3,789$ 3,864$ 3,942$ 4,020$ 4,101$ 4,183$ 4,266$ 4,352$ 4,439$ 4,528$ 4,618$ 4,711$ 4,805$ 4,901$ 4,999$ 5,099$ 85,041$ Materials & Equipment 524$ 626$ 3,048$ 4,200$ 4,284$ 4,370$ 4,457$ 4,546$ 4,707$ 4,801$ 4,897$ 4,995$ 5,095$ 6,132$ 6,255$ 6,380$ 6,507$ 6,637$ 7,021$ 7,161$ 7,304$ 7,547$ 7,698$ 7,852$ 118,645$

Utilities (natural gas & electricity) 30,293$ 32,554$ 32,718$ 36,000$ 37,800$ 39,690$ 41,675$ 43,758$ 45,946$ 48,243$ 50,656$ 53,188$ 55,848$ 58,640$ 61,572$ 64,651$ 67,883$ 71,278$ 74,841$ 78,583$ 82,513$ 86,638$ 90,970$ 95,519$ 1,249,893$ Phones 4,417$ 4,067$ 4,326$ 4,660$ 4,753$ 4,848$ 4,945$ 5,044$ 5,145$ 5,248$ 5,353$ 5,460$ 5,569$ 5,681$ 5,794$ 5,910$ 6,028$ 6,149$ 6,272$ 6,397$ 6,525$ 6,656$ 6,789$ 6,925$ 115,490$ Fuel - Fleet & equipment 1,219$ 1,530$ 2,070$ 1,200$ 1,500$ 1,576$ 1,656$ 1,740$ 1,828$ 1,920$ 2,017$ 2,119$ 2,226$ 2,338$ 2,456$ 2,580$ 2,710$ 2,846$ 2,990$ 3,140$ 3,298$ 3,464$ 3,638$ 3,821$ 49,863$ Building Maintenance (supplies & services incl. internal ) 11,149$ 20,615$ 13,600$ 7,120$ 13,000$ 13,261$ 13,527$ 13,799$ 14,076$ 14,358$ 14,646$ 14,940$ 15,240$ 15,546$ 15,858$ 16,176$ 16,501$ 16,832$ 17,169$ 17,514$ 17,865$ 18,223$ 18,589$ 18,962$ 316,083$ Grounds Maintenance (supplies & services) 13,868$ 17,771$ 19,473$ 22,000$ 22,440$ 22,890$ 23,349$ 23,817$ 24,294$ 24,781$ 25,277$ 25,784$ 26,301$ 26,828$ 27,365$ 27,914$ 28,473$ 29,043$ 29,625$ 30,219$ 30,824$ 31,442$ 32,072$ 32,714$ 545,451$ Equipment Repair (parts & labour) 4,079$ 3,784$ 2,475$ 4,000$ 4,080$ 4,163$ 4,247$ 4,333$ 4,420$ 4,510$ 4,601$ 4,694$ 4,789$ 4,886$ 4,985$ 5,085$ 5,188$ 5,293$ 5,400$ 5,509$ 5,620$ 5,733$ 5,849$ 5,967$ 99,351$ Operating Supplies 11,949$ 20,737$ 10,836$ 13,125$ 13,388$ 13,655$ 13,928$ 14,207$ 14,491$ 14,781$ 15,076$ 15,378$ 15,686$ 15,999$ 16,319$ 16,646$ 16,979$ 17,318$ 17,665$ 18,018$ 18,378$ 18,746$ 19,121$ 19,503$ 325,281$ Taxes 20,743$ 33,914$ 28,399$ 25,600$ 26,880$ 28,224$ 29,635$ 31,117$ 32,673$ 34,306$ 36,022$ 37,823$ 39,714$ 41,700$ 43,785$ 45,974$ 48,273$ 50,686$ 53,221$ 55,882$ 58,676$ 61,609$ 64,690$ 67,924$ 888,813$ Insurance 9,984$ 10,086$ 11,900$ 11,300$ 11,865$ 12,458$ 13,081$ 13,735$ 14,422$ 15,143$ 15,900$ 16,695$ 17,530$ 18,407$ 19,327$ 20,293$ 21,308$ 22,373$ 23,492$ 24,666$ 25,900$ 27,195$ 28,555$ 29,982$ 392,328$ Advertising & Promotion 3,075$ 15,199$ 2,416$ 10,700$ 8,000$ 8,160$ 8,323$ 8,490$ 8,659$ 8,833$ 9,009$ 9,189$ 9,373$ 9,561$ 9,752$ 9,947$ 10,146$ 10,349$ 10,556$ 10,767$ 10,982$ 11,202$ 11,426$ 11,654$ 194,379$ Professional Services 22,195$ 31,080$ 40,031$ 39,500$ 40,000$ 40,800$ 41,616$ 42,448$ 43,297$ 44,163$ 45,046$ 45,947$ 46,866$ 47,804$ 48,760$ 49,735$ 50,730$ 51,744$ 52,779$ 53,835$ 54,911$ 56,010$ 57,130$ 58,272$ 971,895$ Communications (contractor) 12,250$ -$ Aircraft Servicing 11,225$ 12,028$ 10,753$ 11,000$ 11,220$ 11,444$ 11,673$ 11,907$ 12,145$ 12,388$ 12,636$ 12,888$ 13,146$ 13,409$ 13,677$ 13,951$ 14,230$ 14,514$ 14,805$ 15,101$ 15,403$ 15,711$ 16,025$ 267,271$ Airport Furniture 23,698$ 28,707$ -$ Finance Charges 9,697$ 13,790$ 18,677$ 20,000$ 20,400$ 20,808$ 21,224$ 21,649$ 22,082$ 22,523$ 22,974$ 23,433$ 23,902$ 24,380$ 24,867$ 25,365$ 25,872$ 26,390$ 26,917$ 27,456$ 28,005$ 28,565$ 29,136$ 29,719$ 495,666$ A/R write-offs 22,989$ 102$ 11,366$ -$ Travel - Fleet 152,370$ 139,563$ 139,717$ 165,896$ 174,191$ 182,900$ 192,045$ 201,648$ 211,730$ 222,317$ 233,432$ 245,104$ 257,359$ 270,227$ 283,738$ 297,925$ 312,822$ 328,463$ 344,886$ 362,130$ 380,237$ 399,249$ 419,211$ 440,171$ 5,759,785$ Inter-departmental charges (mail, office services, finance, computer serv, GIS, drafting) 58,600$ 74,332$ 77,100$ 94,605$ 96,497$ 98,427$ 100,396$ 102,403$ 104,452$ 106,541$ 108,671$ 110,845$ 113,062$ 115,323$ 117,629$ 119,982$ 122,382$ 124,829$ 127,326$ 129,872$ 132,470$ 135,119$ 137,822$ 140,578$ 2,344,626$ Admin - Planning 1,800$ 37,900$ 38,700$ 47,800$ 50,000$ 51,000$ 52,020$ 53,060$ 54,122$ 55,204$ 56,308$ 57,434$ 58,583$ 59,755$ 60,950$ 62,169$ 63,412$ 64,680$ 65,974$ 67,293$ 68,639$ 70,012$ 71,412$ 72,841$ 1,214,868$ Aviation Fuel (cost of sales) 764,554$ 1,071,521$ 1,307,138$ 1,273,400$ 1,375,884$ 1,486,616$ 1,606,260$ 1,735,533$ 1,875,210$ 2,025,676$ 2,188,217$ 2,363,799$ 2,553,471$ 2,758,361$ 2,928,688$ 3,109,533$ 3,301,546$ 3,505,414$ 3,721,872$ 3,935,673$ 4,161,756$ 4,400,826$ 4,653,629$ 4,920,954$ 58,608,919$

Add'l staff costs due development 50,000$ 51,000$ 52,020$ 53,060$ 54,122$ 55,204$ 56,308$ 57,434$ 58,583$ 59,755$ 60,950$ 62,169$ 63,412$ 64,680$ 65,974$ 67,293$ 68,639$ 70,012$ 1,520,957$ 1,953,255$ 2,147,404$ 2,158,506$ 2,288,396$ 2,424,949$ 2,621,309$ 2,779,230$ 2,948,614$ 3,129,751$ 3,324,034$ 3,532,478$ 3,756,175$ 3,997,240$ 4,204,088$ 4,422,772$ 4,653,995$ 4,898,507$ 5,157,350$ 5,414,848$ 5,686,250$ 5,972,430$ 6,274,014$ 6,591,963$ 84,078,390$

OPERATING INCOME OVER EXPENSES (incl. sale of assets) 211,171-$ 225,555-$ 240,969-$ 323,806-$ 257,983-$ 339,616$ 266,070-$ 253,300-$ 238,608-$ 222,666-$ 143,661$ 153,621-$ 129,991-$ 437,190$ 50,618-$ 29,974-$ 7,482-$ 16,988$ 43,403$ 64,575$ 87,409$ 111,947$ 138,435$ 163,113$ 63,976-$

OPERATING INCOME OVER EXPENSES (excl. sale of assets and Development Levy) 315,031-$ 225,555-$ 287,006-$ 323,806-$ 257,983-$ 228,035-$ 266,070-$ 253,300-$ 238,608-$ 222,666-$ 117,275-$ 153,621-$ 129,991-$ 21,828$ 50,618-$ 29,974-$ 7,482-$ 16,988$ 43,403$ 64,575$ 87,409$ 111,947$ 138,435$ 163,113$ 1,307,924-$

Capex 675,000-$ 918,000-$ 4,161,600-$ -$ 81,182-$ 1,656,121-$ 664,436-$ -$ 585,830-$ 1,553,620-$ -$ 124,337-$ 63,412-$ -$ 131,948-$ 538,347-$ -$ -$ 1,428,246-$ -$ 12,582,080-$

Cash Flow (incl. land sales & dev charges) 932,983-$ 578,384-$ 4,427,670-$ 253,300-$ 319,790-$ 1,878,787-$ 520,775-$ 153,621-$ 715,821-$ 1,116,431-$ 50,618-$ 154,312-$ 70,894-$ 16,988$ 88,545-$ 473,773-$ 87,409$ 111,947$ 1,289,811-$ 163,113$ 12,646,056-$

NPV (2013-32) 7,483,970-$


PED-9-2013-4B

K‐1



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

APPENDIX K: WIND ANALYSIS AND RUNWAY USABILITY

A sufficient number and adequate lengths of runways at an airport are key to an airport’s success. Without these, the airport may not attract or be able to handle the traffic that may wish to use the airport. The “capacity” of this runway system then also affects the level and number of other facilities that will need to be provided.

First let’s look at the number of runways required for the Muskoka airport.

The airport currently has the main runway (18‐36) which is a 6,000 ft long x 150 ft wide paved runway oriented in a north/south direction. The airport also has a secondary grass/dirt runway (09‐27) oriented east/west and located in the south portion of the airport lands.

Per 3.1.1.1 of TP312, Transport Canada recommends the following37:

“The number and orientation of runways at an aerodrome should be such that the usability factor of the aerodrome is not less than 95% (emphasis added) for the aeroplanes that the aerodrome is intended to serve”.

Further, this document goes on to recommend in 3.1.1.2 that:

“in the application of 3.1.1.1 it should be assumed that landing or take‐off of aeroplanes is, in normal circumstances, precluded when the cross‐wind component exceeds:

- 37 km/hr (20 kts) in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is 1500m or over, except that when poor runway braking action owing to an insufficient longitudinal coefficient of friction is experienced with some frequency, a cross‐wind component not exceeding 24 km/h (13 kts) should be assumed;

-24 km/hr (13 kts) in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is 1200m or up to but not including 1500m; and

-19 km/h (10 kts) in the case of aeroplanes whose reference field length is less than 1200m.”

For Muskoka, given that the largest aircraft meant to use the runway require more than 1500m (say 4920 ft), then it would be the first item above, ie, 20 kt crosswind component that would apply to the calculation of annual usability. However, given that during the winter the runway is often wet as it is covered in snow and/or slush, while similarly in summer there may be frequent rain, then the cross‐wind component should be reduced to 13 kts for this runway, as noted.

We should note that the above refers to the case for the “design” of the runway or system of runways. During actual “operations”, Air Traffic Control and the pilot will select whether or not they can land or depart on any particular runway on the basis of “actual” winds and the certification level of the aircraft. So for instance, on a dry day, an A320 coming into YQA for painting at MAR could still land as long as its maximum certified cross‐wind component of 33 kt gusting to 38 kt is not exceeded. If the runway was wet, then the cross‐wind component that the aircraft could take might be limited to as little as 15 kts,

37 This recommendation and the other associated ones discussed are consistent with other international jurisdictions including

the US federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

PED-9-2013-4B

K‐2



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

including gusts, as illustrated in Figure K‐138, depending on the actual direction of the wind39. But on the other hand, even in wet conditions, the aircraft could still land at close to its certified cross‐wind component as long as the angle of the wind to the aircraft was less than about 30 degrees. So in practice, even if 13 kts is used to calculate the “design” usability of the runways, the actual usability would be much higher as many aircraft will be able to “operate” at much higher cross‐wind components (even considering the effects of gusts discussed below).

TP312 goes on to recommend in 3.1.1.3 that:

“The selection of data to be used for the calculation of the usability factor should be based on reliable wind distribution statistics that extend over as long a period as possible, preferably of not less than five years. The observations used should be made at least eight times daily and spaced at equal intervals of time.”

Figure K‐1: Allowable Crosswind Component For Selecting Operating Runway

Source: Presentation by Earle Robinson to the Airport Advisory Committee, date ‐‐‐‐. Original Source NavCanada Document …………………..

It then also notes the following: 38 NavCanada has a similar chart for use under dry conditions. The minimum cross wind component in this case is 25 knots, with all other limits also proportionately higher. 39 In the case where the wind was at 90 degrees to the main runway, the maximum crosswind component would be limited to 15 knots under wet conditions (or 25 knots under dry conditions). However, per the wind rose charts shown later in Figures K‐2 and K‐3, these most severe of conditions (wind at 90 degrees to the runway) only apply about 10% of the time. In most cases the aircraft would be limited to much higher crosswind components, especially during dry conditions, with at many times the aircraft’s limits being more critical than the runway limits.

PED-9-2013-4B

K‐3



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

“Note – these winds are mean winds (emphasis added). Reference to the need for some allowance for gusty conditions is made in ……………….”

Data used to calculate the usability factors below meets the above criteria in that the wind data was collected hourly over all 24 hour periods for at least 19 years. The data was for “mean” winds per normal practice. The Transport Canada recommendations note where there may be a lot of gusts, then appropriate adjustments may be necessary to the above, but unfortunately gust information is rarely available other than through the anecdotal observations of local pilots.

So from the above, we can conclude that while the recommendation states that an adequate number of runways should be provided to achieve not less than 95% usability, in fact usability will actually vary due to 2 key factors; the usability will always be higher for the design or critical aircraft as they can take higher cross‐wind components, higher than the minimum used to calculate usability under virtually all conditions; and then also, the usability could be lower due to the effects of gusts.

In any case, due to the variability and uncertainty in the actual usability, airports tend to try to maximize the usability as much as possible and at reasonable cost vs relying on the fact that the basic usability calculations may indicate that a usability of at least 95% is achieved. Our experience is that airports use this “not less than 95%” usability not so much as a target to be achieved, but as a base level to be exceeded.

The discussion so far has focussed on the “design” aircraft or the aircraft that the design of the runways is meant to accommodate, and these are generally large aircraft for which a 13 kt cross‐wind component is used for “design” purposes. However, most of the aircraft serving the airport (close to 80% as will be shown later) are actually smaller aircraft for which the maximum design cross‐wind component is only 10 kts. In determining the appropriate number of runways for the airport, appropriate consideration also needs to be given to these aircraft.

Table K‐1 summarises the runway usability for Runway 18‐36 based on the data assembled by PSMI/Genivar in a number of studies carried out in 201140 and subsequently reassessed by SNC Lavalin.

Table K‐1: Runway Usability for Runway 18‐36

Runway Usability

Maximum Permissible Crosswind Component

10 kts 13 kts

Runway 18‐36 95.4% 98.6%

This table shows that for the design (larger) aircraft the usability of runway 18‐36 would be an estimated 98.6% using the crosswind component of 13 kts. This usability is considered more than enough, especially knowing that the 13 kt crosswind figure for the design aircraft is on the low side and most, if not all of the design aircraft, will in fact be able to operate at higher crosswind components (though the

40 Muskoka Airport, Windrose Usability Study, Final Report, Pride Schropp McComb Inc (PSMI), November 2010 and Muskoka Airport, Crosswind Runway Relocation Feasibility Study, Final Report, Genivar (ex PSMI), December 2011

PED-9-2013-4B

K‐4



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

effect of gusts will tend to counter this factor). Therefore, we conclude that the current runway orientation is appropriate to meet the needs of the design or critical aircraft serving the airport.

For smaller aircraft (which comprise around 80% of runway operations), using a 10 kt crosswind component would result in a usability of only 95.4%. While many of the aircraft even in this category would be able to accept crosswind components higher than the 10 kts, the effect of gusts would probably tend to reduce the usability to well below 95%. As a consequence, we would argue that the airport needs a second runway to cater to the needs of these smaller aircraft.

The airport currently has a second runway – 09‐27 ‐ but this runway is very short at 2,200 ft and it is not paved.

Given that there would be a need for an additional runway, would it make sense to pave the existing grass runway or would a better orientation be available that would maximise the usability of the overall airport? As well, based on previous work, consideration was given to relocating this runway to make room for additional land development. So looking at a different or better orientation for this second runway would be appropriate.

To find out the answer to this question, we carried out some detailed assessments of the available weather data.

Figure K‐2 illustrates a summary of the analysis of year round wind conditions at the airport site.

Figure K‐2: Runway Availability by Runway Direction – Year round, all periods

84.00%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

92.00%

94.00%

96.00%

98.00%

100.00%

09‐27 10‐28 11‐29 12‐30 13‐31 14‐32 15‐33 16‐34 17‐35 18‐36

Runway Availability by Runway Direction Year Round all Periods

10kt Xwind 13kt Xwind Calms&<10kt

PED-9-2013-4B

K‐5



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Wind rose data is captioned as an inset in the middle of the graph. This wind rose shows the frequency of winds blowing from the various directions. It is evident from this wind rose that winds blow predominantly from two key quadrants: West‐Northwest‐North and South‐Southeast. There is generally little wind from the other two quadrants and in fact winds almost never blow from the east side from about 00 around to 1200. The most frequent wind blows from due west and occurs about 6% of the time (as a % of the yearly winds).

The existing runway orientations at the airport are shown as 2 solid blue lines in the wind rose chart. The north‐south line is 18‐36 and the east‐west line is 09‐27. Runway 18‐36 would appear to be generally well aligned with the year round winds while 09‐27 would appear to be less so. It is quite evident from looking at the wind rose that the ideal runway alignment, if there were to be only one runway, would be a NW to SE orientation.

The graph portion of Figure K‐2 shows the usability for the different runway directions all the way from 09‐27 (on the left) to 18‐36 (to the right). The existing runways in this case are shown as vertical dashed blue lines. What is interesting from this graph is that neither 18‐36 nor 09‐27 provides very good usability compared to the other directions shown. In fact for a 10 kt crosswind component (solid red line), the best runway orientation would be 13‐31 or 14‐32. Each of these directions would provide usability of about 97.5% vs 95.5% for 18‐36 or 94.9% for 09‐27. Looking closely at the line for a 13 kt crosswind (dashed red), we see that this component is less sensitive to direction changes and typically averages usability of 98.5% to 99.5%. Nonetheless, this line also shows that the best direction for year round usability is either 13‐31 or 14‐32.

In Appendix F, we illustrate some additional graphs with respect to the wind analyses that show what we would define as a “quality” index with respect to crosswind components. These graphs show that for the runway directions that maximize the usability, the “frequency” of the greater crosswind components is minimized, whereas with lower usability, the “frequency” of greater crosswinds is higher.

During the discussions, meetings and consultations with users, tenants, pilots and the Airport Advisory Committee, there was a lot of attention brought on summer conditions at the airport, as the existing grass runway (09‐27) can currently only be used in the summer months and during daylight conditions only.

Figure K‐3 illustrates the distribution of summer winds and the analysis of the implications of these winds for runway usability.

The following conclusions can be drawn from this information:

Winds in the summer appear to be more focused from the West –Northwest, and in fact a bit more from the West

The best runway orientation from the perspective of a 10 kt crosswind in the summer, however, is still either 13‐31 or 14‐32 (similar to the year round conditions), with usability of just over 97% vs 94.1% for 09‐27 and 93.6% for 18‐36.

Based on a 13 kt crosswind, the best runway orientation would also be 13‐31 or 14‐32 at 99.3% usability, and again with smaller variation across the different directions.

And as with the year round case, the frequency of greater crosswinds would be less for these runway orientations that have maximum usability.

This above wind analysis is interesting in pointing out the best runway orientation if we were starting over with a green field site. However, we already have the main runway at 18‐36 and the wind analysis shows that this runway provides very good usability for the larger aircraft that are intended to use it (at over 98.5%). The more direct question at hand at this point should probably be: which runway

PED-9-2013-4B

K‐6



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

orientation for a second runway would maximize overall airport usability, or re‐phrased – which additional runway direction would contribute highest to the increase in airport usability? Table 3‐6 provides the answer to this question.

From Table K‐2 it is interesting that there is little difference in the additional contribution that each of the different runway directions studied would make to the base 18‐36 direction. The highest usability is achieved by adding a runway in the 10‐28 or 11‐29 direction (99.6%), but 09‐27 and 12‐30 would also work well in that overall usability would only be 0.1% less, which is effectively a negligible difference and considered well within the margin of error of the analysis. A 13‐31 direction would see the overall usability drop to only 99.1%, which starts to be a more appreciable loss of total usability. This direction does not perform as well in this case, as much of the advantage of this direction would already be accounted for by the existing runway 18‐36.

Figure K‐3: Runway Availability by Runway Direction – Summer daytime only

84.00%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

92.00%

94.00%

96.00%

98.00%

100.00%

09‐27 10‐28 11‐29 12‐30 13‐31 14‐32 15‐33 16‐34 17‐35 18‐36

Runway Availability by Runway Direction Summer Daytime Only

10kt Xwind 13kt Xwind Calms&<10kt

PED-9-2013-4B

K‐7



MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Table K‐2: Runway Usability for 2 runway configurations (at 10kt crosswinds and year round winds)

Runway Airport Usability

18‐36 only 95.5%

With 09‐27 99.5%

With 10‐28 99.6%

With 11‐29 99.6%

With 12‐30 99.5%

With 13‐31 99.1%

This above analysis and resulting conclusions are based on the year round winds only. However, given that the summer usability varied little from the year round in Figure K‐2 and K‐3, an additional, separate analysis was not undertaken for the summer conditions.

PED-9-2013-4B

muskoka business and master plan final draft report-10may

Documents