BIDDEFORD — Marcel Bertrand flies in and out of Biddeford Municipal Airport two to three times a week to visit customers and vendors for his business, Arundel Machine. He’s been using the airport for nearly a decade, routinely flying as far south as Long Island, New York, and as far north as Presque Isle.

Currently, the airport doesn’t meet Federal Aviation Administration standards, with treetops close to the runway extending more than 50 feet above the point that’s considered safe. Because of this, pilots departing from and landing at the airport have to do so at an angle nearly 1 degree higher than normal, and although that may not sound like a significant difference, Bertrand said last Saturday that it’s “definitely an issue,” and landing at the airport, especially at night and in conditions of poor visibility, can be a daunting task.

“Those trees are not visible, and when it’s dark it’s completely dark,” he said. “You can’t see those trees but knowing that they’re there, it’s nerve-racking.”

To remedy the situation, the FAA requested last year that the city approve a multi-year funding plan to remove vegetation in the area. At last Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Stuart Moncrieff, an engineer with Gale Associates; Scott Rollins, the state’s aviation director; Biddeford Airport Commission Chairman Rick Laverriere; and Ralph Nicosia-Rusin, an airport planner with the FAA, spoke in detail about the proposed work. 

Moncrieff said the project would cost a total of $962,500, but the city would only be responsible for paying 5 percent of that, or $48,125; the FAA and the Maine Department of Transportation would cover the remaining 95 percent. The city’s share would also be spread out over three years: $11,000 in fiscal year 2015, $17,875 in fiscal year 2016 and $19,250 in fiscal year 2017.

Laverriere said the Airport Commission voted unanimously to approve the project in November 2014.

Nearly $1 million might seem like a large price for cutting some trees down, but the work isn’t as simple as that, explained Moncrieff. Since the FAA will only fund obstruction removal work on land the airport owns, the city would first have to purchase land that’s currently owned by the New England Electric Railway, which is where most of the trees are. Then there’s a process of acquiring permits and assessing the environmental impact of the work, he said, and lastly, there’s the obstruction removal itself, which likely wouldn’t take place until the winter of 2016-17.

The council’s opinion on the project was more or less split last week; some were in favor of moving forward with it, while others felt further and more accurate data must be collected before pumping close to $50,000 into the airport.

In 2006, the DOT published an analysis of the economic impact of 36 airports in the state, including Biddeford Municipal Airport. It reported that the airport employs 54 people, has a total payroll of $1,313,900 and a total economic output of $3,623,50. It also reported that there were 30,750 aircraft operations there annually.

Councilor Bradley Cote was quick to question those numbers at the meeting.

“I’ve lived near the airport my whole life,” he said, “and I can’t imagine those numbers are correct.”

Rollins acknowledged that Cote was right to doubt the numbers. New technologies have shown that the airport’s aircraft operations are, in fact, between 5,000 and 6,000 per year, he said, and fewer operations mean less total economic output.

“That economic output number will come down a little bit, but not a whole lot,” said Rollins. “So it might go from the $3.6 million (reported in 2006) to maybe $2 million.”

Cote went on to say that he thinks a professional should be hired to conduct an in-depth study assessing the economic impact of the airport. Councilors Clement Fleurent, Marc Lessard and Roger Hurtubise more or less agreed with that notion. Hurtubise said he’s “all for safety at the airport,” but at the same time, the city needs “more accurate figures.”

City Manager John Bubier also echoed that opinion last Thursday. Bubier said that hiring somebody to conduct this research might cost a fair amount ”“ between $25,000 and $50,000, he estimated ”“ but he still thinks that’s the smartest place to start.  

“It makes sense to me that that would be a good place to start,” he said.

For other councilors, the issue that has less to do with money and more to do with the city’s responsibility to maintain the property that it owns.   

“We have a certain obligation as long as we’re operating an airport to make sure that it’s safe for the people that are using it,” said Councilor Michael Ready. “I think that’s a real serious consideration. Whether we decide in the future that we don’t want an airport there, we have one now, and we have an obligation to maintain it safely, and it doesn’t seem like we’re even meeting that minimum threshold ”¦ We have it open; it’s our responsibility to make sure that it’s safe.”

“We have to keep this airport safe,” said Councilor Bob Mills, “not only just for the pilots and the people who use it, but for the residents who live around the airport. This is something that we need to go forward with. Over the years, the airport’s been stagnated, and it’s been unfortunate. It’s turned into some political drama that’s never ending. I think we need to go forward and look at these proposals and go through the grant process.”

Councilors John McCurry and Michael Swanton seconded this sentiment.

Swanton said he was in favor of moving forward with the proposed project, even going as far to say the city’s $48,125 share is “chump change in a $60 million budget”; Biddeford’s approved budget for this fiscal year was $61,828,528.

“In good conscious, I think we all want to make sure that it stays safe, and I think that we need to spend something to maintain its safety,” said McCurry.

Nicosia-Rusin said hiring a professional to conduct research on the airport’s economic impact is not the way to go.

“Economic benefit studies look at the airport like an enterprise,” he said. “It’d be like looking at your police department as a company ”¦ An airport is a transportation utility.”

He also stressed that since the city has been made aware of the safety issue at the airport, it could be held liable for a plane crash.

Biddeford Municipal Airport, which was built in the 1930s, houses a 3,000-foot runway, 41 planes and 29 hangars. Over the past decade or so, the airport has been plagued by debate concerning environmental and other safety issues. Various projects have been implemented over the years to improve the airport ”“ the most recent being the installation of a fence last year ”“ but the city has by and large bypassed grant money from the state and the FAA, which has led to the slow deterioration of airport safety.

In 2008, a referendum asked voters if they wanted to close the airport altogether, but it was defeated handedly, and a 2013 study determined that closing the airport would cost the city between $2.4 million and $7.6 million, as it would have to repay state and federal grants the airport has received as well as buy back the airport’s 29 privately owned hangars. 

Nobody spoke strongly in favor of closing the airport at last week’s meeting, and Councilor Swanton even deemed “ludicrous” the idea of turning the land into an industrial park.

So, for the time being, closing the airport doesn’t seem to be as serious a consideration as it has been in the past. Bertrand said he’s glad to hear that, but the city’s indecision on the matter still perplexes him.

“The city has a great asset there,” he said. “I don’t know why they wouldn’t want to put more effort into growing that, or at least maintaining it.”

— Angelo J. Verzoni is a staff writer at the Journal Tribune. He can be reached at 282-1535, ext. 329, or averzoni@journaltribune.com.