Consultants Recommend Closing Brainerd’s Crosswind Runway to Fund Upgrades; Full Closure Deemed Not Feasible

Consultants who conducted the state-funded Brainerd Airport study told the Finance, Revenue and Bonding informational hearing that the most practical near-term path to strengthen the airport’s finances is to close the crosswind runway (Runway 11‑29) and redevelop about 17–18 acres for light industrial and flex space, while keeping the primary runway and the Connecticut AeroTech School in place.

The recommendation — labeled Scenario 2 in the consultants’ analysis — emerged after detailed market, environmental and financial modeling. "Our recommendation is to is option 2," Thomas Madden, a principal author of the BFJ Planning report, told the committee. The study modeled four alternatives and found Scenario 2 produced the highest internal rate of return (IRR) and the shortest payback, while full closure for a large residential and mixed‑use redevelopment showed negative or multi‑decade payback under current conditions.

Why it matters: Brainerd sits on roughly 200 acres adjacent to the Connecticut River in a city with constrained market fundamentals, substantial environmental and geotechnical challenges and high public‑safety uses on site. The consultants flagged the site’s CT DEEP environmental‑justice index as a 10/10 — the highest score for pollution burden and population sensitivity — and said floodplain, groundwater depth and alluvial soils would substantially raise construction and mitigation costs. That combination made large residential or amenity‑heavy waterfront projects economically difficult without large public subsidies.

Key findings and numbers
- Scenario 2 (close Runway 11‑29 and develop ~17–18 acres) showed the strongest modeled returns: an IRR the consultants reported at about 57% and relatively quick payback driven by modest up‑front infrastructure needs for that parcel.
- Soil remediation across the site was estimated at roughly $1.5 million; full demolition/abatement in a complete closure scenario added about $6.6 million, the consultants said.
- Horizontal/site development cost estimates were roughly $5.1 million for the crosswind closure build‑out, about $46 million for a larger industrial alternative and approximately $55 million for a full residential build‑out (consultants included soft costs and financing in totals).
- The consultants modelled gross project values and residual land values; residential and full‑closure scenarios were negative or low under 10‑ and 30‑year assumptions, producing payback periods measured in decades.

FAA and federal constraints
Consultants and FAA specialist Ronald Price told the committee that formal airport closure requires FAA review focused on whether closure yields a “net benefit to civil aviation.” Price said the team did not get a formal FAA position during the study: "We did not reach out to the FAA directly," he said, adding that the study includes materials the Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA) could present to the FAA to solicit an official response. Commissioner O'Keefe told the panel he had attempted outreach to the FAA and has emails documenting those efforts.

Public value, the AeroTech school and community concerns
Committee members repeatedly raised the Connecticut AeroTech School and public‑safety tenants on site. Consultants said the school could remain under the preferred partial‑closure scenario and might benefit from nearby aerospace industry partners; they warned, however, that complete closure would require relocating several federal and state aviation assets and building replacements at other airports (estimated replacement costs for some federal/state facilities were discussed in the presentation).

Revenue and operating context
Consultants provided airport financials and tenant revenue data. They said Hartford Jet Center remits roughly $400k–$500k a year as airport share, and the airport’s 2023 budget showed an operating loss of about $385,000 (excluding pension contributions). Members questioned whether that level of public subsidy was justified given the site’s underused acreage and competing regional airports.

Community outreach and next steps
Consultants held five public workshops and said attendees included local residents, pilots and other airport users; meeting records exist and the consultants offered to provide a breakdown on demand. Senators and representatives pressed the team on outreach breadth and suggested follow‑up engagement with brownfield specialists and regional stakeholders. The consultants also noted that land‑swap planning with the Metropolitan District Commission could enable a runway extension (Runway 2‑20) that would allow larger business jets to use Brainerd, potentially increasing non‑recreational traffic and revenue.

What the hearing did not produce
The session was informational only; there were no committee votes or formal actions recorded. The consultants recommended Scenario 2 as the most fiscally prudent path given current market, environmental and federal constraints. The committee closed the hearing with chairs emphasizing they would review the materials and follow up as needed.