Airport Feasibility Analysis Study Regional Airport DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Town of Tillsonburg 200 Broadway, 2nd Floor Tillsonburg, N4G 5A5

Date: October 21, 2019

Submitted by:

HM Aero Inc. 532 Montreal Road, Suite 209 , Ontario K1K 4R4

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Study Objectives ...... 2 1.2 Stakeholder Consultations...... 2 2 AIRPORT PROFILE ...... 4 2.1 Role and Designation ...... 4 2.1.1 Role ...... 4 2.1.2 Designation ...... 4 2.2 History ...... 4 2.3 Airport Management & Operations ...... 5 2.4 Current Infrastructure ...... 5 2.4.1 Runways ...... 6 2.4.2 Taxiways and Aprons ...... 6 2.4.3 Air Navigation Facilities ...... 7 2.4.4 Aviation Service Facilities ...... 7 2.4.5 Air Terminal Building ...... 8 2.5 User Profile ...... 8 2.5.1 Current Aviation Businesses ...... 8 2.5.2 Traffic Profile ...... 9 2.6 Economic Benefit ...... 10 3 AIRPORT GOVERNANCE ...... 11 3.1 Background ...... 11 3.2 Current Governance ...... 11 3.3 Governance Approaches ...... 12 3.3.1 No Involvement (Divestiture or Sale of Airport) ...... 12 3.3.2 Town Owned and Operated (Status Quo) ...... 12 3.3.3 Town Owned and Contractor Operated ...... 13 3.3.4 Airport Commission/Board ...... 13 3.3.5 Town Owned and Airport Authority Operated ...... 14 3.3.6 Airport Authority Owned and Operated ...... 15 3.3.7 Governance Model Rankings ...... 18 3.3.8 Recommended Governance Model ...... 19 3.4 Recommended Commission/Board Structure ...... 19 3.5 Partnership ...... 20

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study ii

4 BASELINE AIRPORTS COMPARISON ...... 21 4.1 Comparative Airport Selection ...... 21 4.2 Tillsonburg Regional Airport ...... 22 4.2.1 SWOT Analysis ...... 22 4.3 Comparative Analysis ...... 24 4.4 Findings ...... 25 5 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND REVENUE STRATEGY ...... 26 5.1 Budget Sustainability ...... 26 5.1.1 Revenue ...... 26 5.1.2 Expense ...... 26 5.1.3 Current Financial Situation ...... 27 5.2 Revenue Strategy ...... 28 5.2.1 Current Aeronautical Revenues ...... 28 5.2.2 New Aeronautical Revenues ...... 29 5.2.3 Current Non-Aeronautical Revenues ...... 30 5.2.4 New Non-Aeronautical Revenues ...... 30 5.3 Negotiation Strategy ...... 31 5.3.1 Background ...... 31 5.3.2 Negotiating Strategies ...... 32 5.3.3 Analysis ...... 33 5.3.4 Recommended Strategy ...... 33 6 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS ...... 36 6.1 , Registered Aerodromes, and Certified Airports ...... 36 6.1.1 Aerodromes ...... 36 6.1.2 Registered Aerodromes ...... 36 6.1.3 Certified Airports ...... 37 6.2 Prohibitions ...... 37 6.3 Implications for Tillsonburg Regional Airport ...... 37 6.4 Aerodrome Security Recommendations ...... 38 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 39 7.1 Conclusions ...... 39 7.2 Recommendations ...... 39 Appendix A - TAAC Terms of Reference ...... 41

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study iii

List of Figures Figure 2.1 – Tillsonburg Regional Airport Site Map ...... 5 Figure 2.2 – Tillsonburg Regional Airport Historical Aircraft Movements ...... 9 Figure 3.1 – Airport Governance Structure Spectrum ...... 12 Figure 5.1 – Tillsonburg Regional Airport Revenue and Expense – 2015-2019 ...... 28 Figure 5.2 – Recommended Negotiating Strategy Framework ...... 33

List of Tables Table 3.1 – Significant Airport Governance Features ...... 15 Table 4.1 – Governance Models: Southern Ontario Airports ...... 21 Table 4.2 – Tillsonburg Regional Airport Characteristics for Comparison ...... 22 Table 4.3 – Comparative Airport Analysis ...... 24 Table 5.1 – Tillsonburg Regional Airport Actual and Budgeted Finances – 2015-2019 ...... 27

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study iv

1 INTRODUCTION

The Town of Tillsonburg (the Town) commissioned HM Aero Aviation Consulting (HM Aero) to prepare a Feasibility Analysis study for Tillsonburg Regional Airport. Tillsonburg Regional Airport (CYTB) is a registered aerodrome owned and operated by the Town of Tillsonburg, located in South West Oxford Township situated on more than 600 hectares of land. Originally constructed to support flight training by the (RCAF) during World War II, the Airport facility consists of one paved and two turf runways, and a supporting taxiway and apron network. Tillsonburg is a growing community in south-central Ontario, located south of Highway 401, within Oxford County. Tillsonburg is home to approximately 16,000 residents and the community continues to grow as a result of resident migrations. The Second Quarter Report produced by the Town of Tillsonburg’s Building Planning and By-law Services Department revealed that the total value of approved developments in the first two quarters of 2019 was $33,076,609, exceeding the historical value for 2018 ($26,732,028). Additionally, 2018 outperformed 2017 by a factor nearly two (2017 total construction value was $14,113,805 after two quarters). This indicates a strong level of growth within the community. Currently, Tillsonburg Regional Airport does not support regularly scheduled passenger service – the facility is classified as a registered aerodrome and is not certified in accordance with the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). Tillsonburg Regional Airport is home to one flight school and the Canadian Harvard Aircraft Association (CHAA) who restores, maintains and operates a fleet of Harvard aircraft.

Aerial View of Tillsonburg Regional Airport - August 2019

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 1

1.1 Study Objectives

The objectives of the Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study are to: 1. analyze the current airport governance model for Tillsonburg Regional Airport to identify current deficiencies and challenges; 2. identify appropriate governance models that are applicable to the size and scope of infrastructure and operations at Tillsonburg Regional Airport; 3. complete a comparative analysis of the appropriate airport governance models to determine the best fit for Tillsonburg Regional Airport based on the political landscape, revenue generation potential, and the lowest risk to the Town; 4. investigate and identify appropriate revenue generation strategies for the Airport; based on government contributions and through private investment; 5. identify and develop divestiture options for Tillsonburg Regional Airport, 6. conduct a review of the regulatory requirements of a registered aerodrome as they pertain to security and provide recommendations to meet those requirements; and 7. engage with the Town and local stakeholders to build a current profile of Tillsonburg Regional Airport that examines: a. the Airport’s user profile; b. the change of the Airport’s use over the past decade; c. the most significant challenges and changes that could be expected at the Airport in the future; d. advantages and disadvantages of operating an airport in Tillsonburg; and e. a comparison of air traffic volume and mix compared to other similar airports in southern Ontario.

1.2 Stakeholder Consultations

To successfully achieve the study objectives, the HM Aero team completed a stakeholder engagement program to better understand the current opportunities, constraints and challenges with the management and operation of Tillsonburg Regional Airport. Stakeholders were engaged through in-person meetings and interviews, HM Aero’s attendance at the Tillsonburg Regional Airport Advisory Committee meeting, and through a public information session held with airport tenants. The following individuals and stakeholder groups were engaged (in-person) to support development of the Airport Feasibility Analysis Study: • Town of Tillsonburg: o Director of Operations o Manager of Public Works o Airport Administrator

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 2

• Tillsonburg Airport Advisory Committee Members: o Chair (Appointed) o Secretary (Appointed) o Town of Tillsonburg Councillor o South West Oxford Township (SWOX) Councillor o 7 Additional Appointed Members • Airport Tenants and Users (11) In general, stakeholders expressed concern historically regarding the timelines related to obtaining development approvals for new hangar construction. The following steps were required under the process used until 2018: 1. The Applicant would make a request for hangar development to the Airport. 2. The Airport Administrator would draft a report for Town Council. 3. Town Council would review the report and grant approval if appropriate. 4. The Applicant would request a building permit from SWOX. 5. Once the permit was received, the Applicant could begin development. Changes at SWOX in 2018 disrupted this process and resulted in a significant decrease in hangar construction. A new process has been developed intended to streamline the process and increase hangar development at the Airport: 1. The Applicant makes a request for hangar development to the Airport. 2. The Airport Administrator drafts a report for Town Council. 3. Town Council reviews the report and grants approval if appropriate. 4. The Applicant signs a lease with the Airport. 5. The Applicant requests an Airport Development Permit (ADP) from the Town of Tillsonburg. 6. Once the ADP is approved, the Applicant begins development.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 3

2 AIRPORT PROFILE

2.1 Role and Designation

2.1.1 Role The Airport Role Statement is the fundamental starting point in classifying current activity and determining a future position in terms of long-term activities and development at the site. Defining an airport role assists airport owners and operators in decision making as it relates to ownership, operations, and required financial investment at an airport facility. Tillsonburg Regional Airport serves the needs of commercial, recreational and government aircraft operators within Oxford County and south-central. Ontario. In order to maximize the future economic potential of the facility within the region, the short-term role of the Tillsonburg Regional Airport should be to provide: • a base for corporate and private aircraft owners and operators; • a service hub for general aviation aircraft repair and maintenance activities; • a base for flight training activities; • a base for aircraft restorations; • flexibility to support modest passenger air charter services (9 seat aircraft); and • facilities to support aerial sightseeing activities.

2.1.2 Designation Tillsonburg Regional Airport is owned and operated by the Town of Tillsonburg and is not a member airport within Transport ’s . As indicated previously, Tillsonburg Regional Airport is classified by Transport Canada as a registered aerodrome, indicating that the facility is not required to be designed and operated as per the requirements stipulated within Transport Canada’s Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP312). Aerodromes are required to be certified if they support regularly scheduled passenger air services, are located within a built-up area, or if the Minister of Transportation stipulates that certification is required. Registered aerodrome operations are governed by fewer regulatory requirements, compared to certified airports.

2.2 History Tillsonburg Regional Airport was originally constructed by the Royal Canadian Air Force to support flight training during World War II. The Airport was originally designed in the common triangular runway configuration of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP) to ensure favorable crosswinds conditions for student pilots. The lands occupied by Tillsonburg Regional Airport were leased from the Federal Government starting in the 1950s. In 1971, the Town paved Runway 08-26 and constructed a public apron and supporting taxiway. Also added that decade was a terminal building, aircraft hangars, and a fuel facility. The Town formally assumed ownership and operation of the Airport in 1981. The Airport has since undergone an expansion and upgrade program including the extension of Runway 08-26 to 5,502 feet in 2009. In 2010 a new terminal building was also developed to support a restaurant, a flight school and airport administrative activities. Since 2010, several new recreational aircraft hangars have been developed at the site.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 4

2.3 Airport Management & Operations Tillsonburg Regional Airport is owned and operated by the Town of Tillsonburg. The lands occupied by the Airport are located outside the limits of the Town (approximately 7 km north of the Town centre), within the Township of South West Oxford. Airport operations are overseen by an Airport Administrator that reports to the Manager of Public Works, who in turn reports to the Town’s Director of Operations. The facility is operated under the umbrella of the Town’s Operations Department and maintenance resources (equipment and personnel) are provided to the Airport by Public Works. The Airport is governed by Town Council and advised by the Tillsonburg Airport Advisory Committee (TAAC). The TAAC’s mandate is: • to advise and make recommendations to Council on matters related to the Tillsonburg Regional Airport; • to provide a forum for receiving input and advice from aviation stakeholder groups and the community with respect to the Airport Master Plan and strategic initiatives; and • to provide a forum for dialogue and communication. Day to day operations of the airport is the responsibility of Town staff. The TAAC’s Terms of Reference are presented in Appendix A.

2.4 Current Infrastructure A brief description of the current infrastructure at Tillsonburg Regional Airport is provided herein as it relates to the Airport Feasibility Analysis study. The information presented in the following sections was obtained through a site visit and inspection, and through a review of current aeronautical publications, such as the Canada Flight Supplement (CFS), and the Canada Air Pilot (CAP). Tillsonburg Regional Airport includes three runways, three taxiways, and one public apron. The core development area is in the southeast quadrant of the Airport property. The primary features of the facility are shown in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 – Tillsonburg Regional Airport Site Map

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 5

2.4.1 Runways Runway 08-26 The primary runway, Runway 08-26, is 5,502’ x 100’ (1,677 m x 30.5 m) with a paved asphalt surface. The threshold of Runway 26 is displaced 1,000’ due to the presence of trees immediately east of the Airport property boundary. Runway 08-26 (the Airport’s primary paved runway) is capable of supporting operations for aircraft up to and including the DHC8-400, General Aviation (GA) corporate aircraft, and other turbofan (jet) aircraft types carrying fewer than 100 passengers.

Threshold of Runway 08 at Tillsonburg Regional Airport Runways 02-20 and 14-32 Two secondary turf runways are currently in operation at Tillsonburg Regional Airport - Runway 02-20 and Runway 14-32. Runway 02-20 has dimensions of 2,348’ x 75’ (715.7 m x 22.9 m) and Runway 14-34 extends 2,258’ x 75’ (688.2 m x 22.9 m) in width. The two turf runways are primarily used by smaller piston aircraft involved in recreational and flight training activities. All four turf runway thresholds are displaced (either 100 ft. or 300 ft.) due to the presence of seasonal tall crops and both turf runways are not maintained during the winter season.

2.4.2 Taxiways and Aprons Tillsonburg Regional Airport provides one primary taxiway that connects the approximate midpoint of Runway 08-26 to the Airport’s main apron. The taxiway is approximately 15 m in width and is comprised of a paved asphalt surface. Two additional paved private taxiways connect the main apron to the east and west development areas at the Airport. The main apron has dimensions of approximately 60 m x 60 m and is also comprise of a paved asphalt surface. The apron supports aircraft tie-downs and a cardlock aviation fuelling system. The configuration of the main apron, the primary taxiway and the private taxiways can result in congestion during peak periods resulting in a limited area available to park aircraft on the main apron.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 6

Furthermore, the Airport’s single taxiway connection to Runway 08-26 has been observed to cause congestion during peak periods, sometimes requiring departing aircraft to exit the taxiway and hold short of the runway within the grass area beside the taxiway to allow for aircraft to clear the runway environment before taxiing to the main apron.

2.4.3 Air Navigation Facilities Instrument Flight Procedures Non-precision instrument approach capability is provided for Runway 08 at Tillsonburg Regional Airport. A GPS-based LNAV Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) provides increased airport availability during periods of poor weather to a minimum descent altitude of 416’ Above Ground Level (AGL) with visibility limits of 1 ¼ statute miles. A VOR/DME IFP is also provided at Tillsonburg Regional Airport, supporting a minimum descent altitude of 527’ AGL and a minimum visibility requirement of 1 ¾ statute miles (or better). Visual Aids The Airport is equipped with the following visual aids to support regular aircraft operations, and operations during periods of darkness and/or reduced visibility. • An Aerodrome Beacon; • Low-Intensity Runway Edge Lighting (08-26); • Low-Intensity Threshold and Runway End Lighting (08-26); • Aircraft Radio Control of Aerodrome Lighting (ARCAL) System; and • Lighted Windsocks.

2.4.4 Aviation Service Facilities Aviation Communications An Aerodrome Traffic Frequency (ATF) is currently provided at Tillsonburg Regional Airport. ATFs are normally designated for active uncontrolled airports that do not meet the criteria for a Mandatory Frequency (MF) service. ATFs are established to ensure that all radio-equipped aircraft operating on the ground or within the vicinity of the aerodrome are listening on a common frequency and following common reporting procedures. A Universal Communications (UNICOM) service is provided at Tillsonburg Regional Airport during normal operating hours whereby airport advisory information (wind speed, direction, altimeter setting, and other reported traffic) can be conveyed to aircraft operating in the Airport’s vicinity. In addition, the ATF is used to communicate intentions, aircraft position and other information between aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Airport. Airport Support Facilities Several aviation support facilities are available at Tillsonburg Regional Airport. The following support facilities are available, as stated within the most current publication of the Canada Flight Supplement (CFS): • 24-Hour Aircraft Fuel Services including 100 Low-Lead (Avgas) and Jet A1 fuel sales; • Aircraft Storage; • Servicing/Minor Aircraft Repairs; • Major Aircraft Repairs; • Extended Term Aircraft Parking; and • Aircraft Tie Down Facilities.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 7

Further to the above, Tillsonburg Regional Airport is designated by Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) as an Airport of Entry (AOE 15) capable of supporting transborder operations for up to 15 passengers.

2.4.5 Air Terminal Building Tillsonburg Regional Airport is supported by an air terminal building that supports an airport administration office, a restaurant, boardroom, washrooms and leasable space currently occupied by the Tillsonburg Flying School. The building is located at the centre of the core area and supports administrative functions and itinerant aircraft arrivals and departures. The building is supported by a vehicle parking area with the capacity to support 48 light vehicles. The building has limited passenger processing capacity capable of supporting modest scheduled passenger and charter air services (9 seat aircraft).

An exterior view of the Tillsonburg Regional Airport Air Terminal Building

2.5 User Profile

2.5.1 Current Aviation Businesses Tillsonburg Regional Airport supports a variety of aviation-related businesses and organizations that support the GA sector in south-central Ontario, as identified below. • Canadian Harvard Aircraft Association (CHAA) – acquire, preserve, maintain, display, and demonstrate Harvard and other training aircraft associated with the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan and the Royal Canadian Airforce. • Lee Air Leasing Ltd. – provides aircraft maintenance and specialized work. • Tailwind Aviation Services – specializes in avionics for amateur built and certified aircraft. • Tillsonburg Flying School - private accredited career college located on the lower level of the air terminal building offering flight training using Cessna 150 and Cessna 172 aircraft.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 8

In addition to the businesses identified above, Tillsonburg Regional Airport is home to approximately 17 hangars that have been developed by private entities to support aircraft storage. Three additional hangars at Tillsonburg Regional Airport support CHAA, Tailwind Aviation, and Lee Air Leasing Ltd. Consultations with the Airport Administrator indicate that there is continuing demand for the development of GA recreational and commercial hangar facilities at Tillsonburg Regional Airport. Consultations revealed that some hangar owners travel as far as 1.5 – 2.0 hours from their place of residence to Tillsonburg Regional Airport to engage in recreational flying activities, indicating that the facility is an attractive base for the further development of GA activities.

2.5.2 Traffic Profile Tillsonburg Regional Airport experiences a relatively even split of local and Itinerant (visiting aircraft) traffic. Aircraft movement levels (takeoffs and landings) have been recorded by the Airport Administrator on a regular basis. Historical aircraft activity levels at Tillsonburg Regional Airport are shown in Figure 2.2. Between the years 2011 and 2018, aircraft movement activity has remained relatively steady ranging from 9,500 to 15,000 annual movements. Traffic peaked in 2016 but has declined for several reasons: • The loss of flight instructors at the flight school; • The closure of flights schools in London that frequented Tillsonburg Regional Airport; and • A reduction in the traffic reporting hours starting in May 2017 coinciding with the installation of the card lock fuel system. (Though recorded traffic may have declined as a result, actual traffic may not have declined by the same number). Figure 2.2 – Tillsonburg Regional Airport Historical Aircraft Movements

18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000

ANNUAL MOVEMENTS ANNUAL 4000 2000 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 YEAR

Records also indicate that in 2017 the Airport supported 69 corporate aircraft and 53 in 2018. These aircraft operations supported executive transportation to local businesses, individuals visiting the area to engage in fishing and hunting activities, and for other purposes. The Airport is home to approximately 50 commercial and GA aircraft and supports a wide variety of recreational, government and corporate users, including, but not limited to the Ontario Provincial Police, Ornge, the Department of National Defence, and the .

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 9

2.6 Economic Benefit

It is important to consider the economic benefit of an airport beyond its financial performance. Though an airport may consistently have an operating deficit when examining annual financial statements, it may very well be generating millions of dollars of economic benefit for the region. In other words, it is important to view airports as potential economic drivers for the communities and regions in which they serve. Economic benefit occurs in three different ways: 1. Direct: These impacts occur on the site of the facility. These effects are generated immediately through aviation activity (e.g. the sale of aviation fuel). There are no intermediate steps between aviation activity and the benefits. 2. Indirect: Companies doing business on the Airport make many expenditures in the region off-airport. The methods of economic impact analysis distinguish between benefits occurring within the footprint of the Airport and those outside of it. The "Indirect Effects" measure the importance of the tenants' expenditures on goods and services that occur outside of the Airport. For example, an airport tenant may purchase goods or services from companies outside of the Airport, potentially within the Town. Although attributable to the Airport, they do not occur on the site of the Airport. 3. Induced: The employees of on-airport businesses and off-airport suppliers receive wages and salaries. They spend these funds in the community to purchase a wide range of other goods and services. These expenditures support further employment, GDP, and labour income. The process continues indefinitely, with each further round being smaller than the one immediately before it. The goal of an airport should not be solely focused on being financially self sustainable, but to facilitate greater economic benefit in the region. Though an airport may be perceived as a draw on municipal resources, it is crucial to understand that expenses seen at the airport are offset by economic gains in the community. These economic gains often far outweigh the expenses of the airport, although it may not be obvious to all stakeholders (e.g. corporate users, residents, etc.).

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 10

3 AIRPORT GOVERNANCE

3.1 Background

Tillsonburg Regional Airport is currently owned and operated by the Town of Tillsonburg. The Town is examining the Airport’s future vision, including the most applicable governance structure. An appropriate airport governance structure can contribute to making better focused decisions that are in the best interests of the Airport and the region. The Airport is, and can be, an important tool for surrounding municipalities to achieve their regional objectives. It can be a mechanism for economic development by attracting increased passenger services, new businesses, and developing tourism and recreational activities in the region. An effective airport governance structure provides airport owners with the tools to effectively manage, plan, develop and market the airport in the best interests of the region in which it serves. There are very few small airports in Canada that generate a financial operating surplus. An airport properly developed and managed is an economic generator where the cost is incurred at the airport, but the benefit is realized in the businesses throughout the community. Municipalities benefit from the increased tax base, more employment, greater economic activity, and improved ability to attract new activity. There are a range of governance options that are available for airports. Each model has characteristics that are important to the type and credibility of the decisions and the ability to encourage participation by others (governments, aviation operators, aviation support businesses, potential economic opportunities, etc.) in airport development and operations.

3.2 Current Governance

Tillsonburg Regional Airport is currently owned and operated by the Town. The Airport is managed on a day-to-day basis by an Airport Administrator. The Administrator reports to the Manger of Public Works who reports to the Director of Operations and then to Town Council. Furthermore, the Town Council has appointed an Airport Advisory Committee comprised of two elected officials from the Town and the Township of South West Oxford, in addition to nine appointees. The Airport Advisory Committee (TAAC) makes recommendations to Council on matters related to the Tillsonburg Regional Airport. It is intended to provide a forum for receiving input and advice from aviation stakeholder groups and the community with respect to the Airport Master Plan and strategic initiatives and to provide a forum for dialogue and communication. The Committee does not have any authority to make major decisions regarding the operation or development of the Airport. The TAAC’s Terms of Reference are presented in Appendix A. Stakeholder consultations revealed that the requirement for financial support at the Airport is a cause of concern at the community level. Some residents see the Airport as a facility for aviation enthusiasts who can afford to own or fly airplanes for recreation purposes and many may question why taxpayers should be paying the costs of operating an Airport.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 11

3.3 Governance Approaches

There are a range of governance approaches that are utilized by airports across Canada. Some are more relevant to larger airports and some for smaller regional and community airports. The range includes some dramatic options such as closing the Airport, up to the formation of Airport Authorities that require a large amount of commercial passenger traffic to be effective. For each option there can be different operating arrangements between the airport owner and operator. An airport governance structure is not dictated by who operates the airport, but by how decisions affecting the operations and development of the airport are made. The range of governance approaches typically employed at airports in Canada is illustrated in Figure 3.1. The significant features of each governance option are summarized in Table 3.1. Figure 3.1 – Airport Governance Structure Spectrum

3.3.1 No Involvement (Divestiture or Sale of Airport) The option to sell the Airport could be very expensive as there may be several obligations to be met by the owner. If the Airport is to be sold, all the risks and obligations will need to be valued and become part of the sale price, including risk carried by operating an airport (e.g. soil contamination, obligation to tenants and airport businesses to maintain an airport, possibility of new owner using lands for an incompatible land use) and considering the facility supported military training activities for the BCATP. In most cases, the cost to immediately bring the Airport into a simplified sale condition may far outweigh the price a potential buyer may be willing to pay for the Airport. Furthermore, if the Airport is sold to a third party, the Town will have little control over the activity that may take place on the airport property, reducing the ability to position the Airport as an economic driver within the community. In addition, once airport lands are sold for other uses, it may be extremely cost prohibitive to purchase lands and develop a new airport, if future demand for aviation facilities in the community were to increase in the future.

3.3.2 Town Owned and Operated (Status Quo) This is the current airport governance model in place at Tillsonburg Regional Airport. Under this airport governance model, the Airport is operated and managed by the Town. The Town’s council has appointed an Advisory Committee to advise and make recommendations to Council on matters related to the Tillsonburg Regional Airport and provide a forum for receiving input and advice from aviation stakeholder groups and the community with respect to the Airport Master Plan and other strategic initiatives.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 12

One of the primary challenges of this model is that elected officials who are appointed to the Airport Committee are subject to frequent change and do not necessarily cover all the important skills common of a Commission/Board. In addition, as elected Councillors, committee members may have conflicting priorities when trying to decide what is best for their constituents and the Airport. There may be times when the priorities of one may conflict with the priorities of the other (i.e. the development of a community centre, a recreational centre, or a similar community facility may compete for funds that could be used to develop the Airport). Under the current governance model, the Town has the responsibility to hire and manage staff at the Airport and ensure appropriate staff support activities are provided (i.e. training, licensing, and benefits). This adds to the administrative burden for the Town. Furthermore, the current Tillsonburg Airport Advisory Committee (TAAC) members have many responsibilities that make it difficult to commit the time to focus on airport development. Under this governance model the Town has direct control over airport planning and operations and also carries any liabilities for legal and regulatory obligations.

3.3.3 Town Owned and Contractor Operated This option is like the Town Owned and Operated model, with the exception that a private entity would operate the Airport under some type of contract arrangement. The contract conditions typically have a company operate an airport for a fee. This would eliminate the day- to-day operational obligation, but there is normally a cost associated with this model, usually a profit for the company that is operating the airport. The contractor is not focused on cost efficiency or additional revenue generation at the airport unless they share in the gain. Furthermore, under this governance model there is little incentive for the private operator to promote the airport unless there is some form of compensation for time and costs incurred. The private operator could assist in the airport administration, but this would normally be part of the fee. If this governance option were selected at Tillsonburg Regional Airport, the Town would still carry legal and regulatory obligations and the overall integration of the Airport in regional plans and site planning would remain with the Town. In general, the main benefit of this option is that day-to-day operations are removed from the direct responsibility of the Town. The main concern is that this option is more costly than the present approach, unless a benevolent group is prepared to operate the Airport at minimal cost.

3.3.4 Airport Commission/Board An Airport Commission/Board is a group of appointed individuals with the expertise and time to focus on the planning, management, development, and promotion of the airport. Commissions/Boards generally bring a more business-like focus to airport operations to reduce the cost-revenue gap. Commission/Board members would be responsible for the oversight of the day-to-day operations, relieving the municipal (Public Works) staff of this task. A Commission/Board would also bring an annual budget and plans to Town Council for approval. The Commission/Board would report to Council on progress against the financial and operational plans and the reporting could be as often as Council deems appropriate. The Commission/Board would operate under any policies deemed applicable by the Town (e.g. contracting policies, environmental legislation, agreed upon signing authority to commit Town resources, use of Town equipment, staff and facilities, etc.).

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 13

To be most effective, the Commission/Board should be comprised of appointed volunteers who have a strong interest in the Airport as well as the skills needed to manage and grow the facility. These would include finance, marketing, aviation knowledge, engineering, legal, and business management skills. The individuals that form the Commission/Board should not be elected officials to avoid potential conflicts. In order to be most effective, the members should be nominated by the groups that have an interest in the Airport, including the Town (owner), surrounding townships and counties (current and potential funders, and citizens that utilize and benefit from the Airport), airport user groups (tenants, businesses that use the airport), and/or independent members form the community at large. The members would be approved by the Town from the nominations submitted, with a typical term of 3-5 years with a renewable option. The appointments should be staggered to ensure ongoing knowledge transfer and the Commission/Board should elect from their members a Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer. They should meet as frequently as needed and keep a record of meeting minutes and agendas. The Airport Commission/Board would have more consistency of membership when compared to the current model as their appointment could be for a longer term than each municipal election. The individuals would bring the skills that are important to develop the Airport and would fuse their knowledge and experience to help guide the future development of the Airport. Commission/Board members often use their local contacts to promote and encourage airport use and funding. In addition, the presence of a Commission/Board of qualified persons assists in creating credibility when approaching governments and industry for participation in the development of the Airport. Furthermore, under this model the Airport Commission/Board would develop plans for the Airport in coordination with the regional plans developed by the Town, Township, and County. The Town would own the land and carry the legal and regulatory obligations. There would likely be a continuing need for a contribution from the Town and County and potentially contribution from the Township, but with the knowledge and experience of members, the amount of the contribution should decrease over time as the cost-revenue gap closes with future business growth at the Airport. Successful negotiations and additional contributions from the County and township, could potentially close or eliminate the gap. An Airport Commission/Board comes with the benefit of the use and availability of skilled and experienced individuals focused on improving and developing the Airport, consistent with the objectives of the Town. Airport priorities are their main concern and as appointed persons they are not in conflict with other Town priorities. This governance model offers many attractive features for Tillsonburg Regional Airport. If a Commission/Board is implemented, it should reduce the amount of financial contributions required to support operations and development, relieve the municipal Councillors of the additional workload, provide a dedicated effort to develop and promote the Airport, and bring enhanced credibility to the marketing of the facility to business and governments.

3.3.5 Town Owned and Airport Authority Operated This option is appropriate if a large Airport Authority wishes to have a smaller airport to enhance their network of services or as a competitive advantage to other airports. This is not a common governance structure in Canada for regional and community airports. Most satellite airports for large Airport Authorities were part of the original transfer from the federal government. In this model, the Airport Authority becomes the tenant at the airport and the Town becomes the landlord. Depending on the arrangement, the Town could be removed from operational responsibilities and liabilities.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 14

Under this model, the Airport Authority makes and carries out all decisions concerning airport planning, funding, construction, customer relations, and meeting all applicable laws and regulations. Town employees become employees of the Airport Authority in the initial stages, after which collective bargaining processes affect the future hiring and compensation for airport employees.

3.3.6 Airport Authority Owned and Operated The Airport Authority form of governance is most applicable for very large airports with high volumes of commercial and private aircraft operations. The Authority is created by a Provincial statute which gives it significant powers to charge fees and incur debt. The Authority has full power to plan, develop and operate the airport. This model is expensive to operate and is generally not applicable to a regional and community airports. Table 3.1 summarizes some of the significant features of each governance model. Table 3.1 – Significant Airport Governance Features

Characteristics Relevant to Tillsonburg Regional Airport Governance Option Positive Negative Divestiture or Sale of Airport -No involvement in Airport -Loss of future potential ownership, operation, or funding. economic generator for region. -No managerial effort required -Buyer difficult to find if Airport is after sale. currently subsidized. -No annual operating deficit to -Cost to sell could be significant cover (environmental responsibilities, obligations to those at the Airport site with leases, etc.). -Loss of future marketing tool to encourage business development. -Significant effort and political will required to sell Airport. Very difficult to find an “acceptable buyer” (politically acceptable, acceptable to aviation and business community, etc.) -May include commitment for significant upgrades and financial assistance in the short term. This may include tree removal at end of runway, environmental remediation around fuel tanks, etc. - Use of lands may be inconsistent with region priorities -New owner may be a competitor in some future aviation or development opportunities. -May be difficult to argue against the perception that the Airport is being run for profit and not in the best interest of the region -Moderate to high cost to implement.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 15

Governance Option Characteristics Relevant to Tillsonburg Regional Airport Positive Negative Town Owned and Operated -Airport available for future -Subsidies may be needed from (Status Quo) development. local government tax base. -Governments maintain control -Lack of knowledge to operate over future airport planning and an airport in various government development. levels. -Communications with Council -No assurance of availability of very direct and frequent. appropriate airport related skills. -Use as a tool for economic -Potential for missed business development. opportunities. -Ensure consistency with local, -Town responsible to administer regional, and provincial plans. the airport operations (hire -No cost to implement manager, training, etc.). -Town carries safety and any legislative liabilities (Environment, employee safety, aviation safety regulations etc.). -Managerial effort to operate the airport. -Town staff time used on airport issues. -Financial risk borne by the Town (all losses are the responsibility of the taxpayers). -Fee increases are a political issue. -Operational risk (i.e. aircraft accident, fire, etc.). -Specialized airport knowledge not normally part of the Town skill set (i.e. airport operations, aviation planning, etc.). -Raising capital on outside markets could be difficult. -Major infrastructure improvements will be difficult to fund within the Town budget.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 16

Characteristics Relevant to Tillsonburg Regional Airport Governance Option Positive Negative Town Owned and Contractor -Removes day to day operating -Could be more costly (operator Operated responsibility. must make a profit) A party -Government officials have willing to operate the airport for reduced time commitment. little or no cost would be very helpful (there may be very few potential groups prepared to do this). -Airport may not be developed in a direction in the best interest of the Town and other surrounding townships or County -Town carries any safety and legislative liabilities. -Private contractor may not be willing or able to pursue new opportunities for airport development. -Little incentive for operator to cut costs or make efficiency gains. -Some Town managerial effort to manage the airport. -Financial risk remains if revenue does not exceed costs. -Some specialized knowledge still required (i.e. knowledgeable contractor). -Raising capital on outside markets could be difficult. -Moderate cost of implementation. Airport Commission/Board -Better expertise to manage the -Financial contributions will be development of the airport. required from all parties -More business-like focus on participating in the decision- running the Airport. making process. -Commission/Board is -Loss of direct day-to-day responsible for the day to day management of airport by the airport management (remove Town. responsibility from government -Town carries safety and any levels). legislative liabilities -More likely to find business (Environment, employee safety, opportunities for the airport. aviation safety regulations etc.). -Better able to find cost cutting -Financial risk borne by the and revenue generating Owners (all losses are the opportunities. responsibility of the taxpayers). -Town owns land and can ensure -Operational risk (i.e. aircraft direct airport development accident, fire, etc.). consistent with municipal plans. -Raising capital on outside -Low cost of implementation. markets could be difficult. -Major infrastructure improvements will be difficult to fund within the Town budget.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 17

Characteristics Relevant to Tillsonburg Regional Airport Governance Option Positive Negative Town Owned and Airport -All operational risk taken by AA. -Local governments removed Authority Operated -All staffing and training done by from business and customer AA. relations. -All labour negotiations done by -Must ensure compliance with AA. Town plans through agreements, bylaws etc. -Good ability to raise capital on outside markets. -Less able to use airport to achieve other local government -AA markets and promotes objectives. Done through Airport. discussion and agreements. -Representation on Airport Authority Board would be minimal. -Determination of local representation on larger airport Board would be difficult. -AA may not make decisions in best interest of Airport. -High cost of implementation. Airport Authority Owned and -All operational risk taken by AA. -Significant overhead cost. Operated -All staffing and training done by -Integration with regional (This model is most applicable to AA. planning more difficult. very large scheduled passenger -All labour negotiations done by -Requires significant passenger traffic type airports) AA. volumes or a large contribution -Good ability to raise capital on to operations is necessary. outside markets. -Legislation required. -AA markets and promotes -More difficult to align with Airport. municipal and Town Planning. -Town continues to own land. -Legislative and financial risks remain. -High cost of implementation.

3.3.7 Governance Model Rankings Based on HM Aero’s research, analysis, stakeholder consultations and our understanding of effective airport governance in Canada, the governance models examined as part of our study have been ranked from one (most recommended), to five (least recommended) as they apply to Tillsonburg Regional Airport: 1. Commission/Board 2. Town Owned and Operated (Status Quo) 3. Town Owned and Contractor Operated 4. Town Owned and Airport Authority Operated 5. Airport Authority 6. Sell (Divest) Airport

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 18

3.3.8 Recommended Governance Model In examining the range of governance options, it is HM Aero’s opinion that the governance model best suited for Tillsonburg Regional Airport is the creation of an Airport Commission/Board to plan, develop, operate, maintain, and market the Airport. This model involves the creation of a semi-autonomous Board or Commission that oversees all aspects of the airport operations independent of Council (aside from annual reporting on budgets and capital funding requirements). Under this recommended airport governance model, Tillsonburg Regional Airport would continue to be owned by the Town or the Town with partnering municipalities sharing in funding operational deficits and capital projects. Furthermore, it is expected that a Commission/Board model can be operated at no additional cost (aside from potential costs to create a Board/Commission Mandate/Terms of Reference). An example of this model is Lake Simcoe Airport. It serves general aviation, flight training and commercial corporate jet activities. The Airport is jointly owned by the City of Barrie (60%), the County of Simcoe (20%) and the Township of Oro-Medonte (20%) and is managed by a Municipal Service Corporation (Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Inc.) which is responsible for the Airport’s operation and maintenance. The Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Inc. Board of Directors is comprised of nine members, five of which are City of Barrie appointees; two of which are County of Simcoe appointees and two of which are appointed by the Township of Oro-Medonte.

3.4 Recommended Commission/Board Structure

The composition and operational structure of a new Airport Commission/Board will be crucial to its success, and the future success of the Airport. Based on our understanding of the current constraints and challenges related to airport governance at Tillsonburg Regional Airport, HM Aero is recommending that a Commission/Board be formed to govern the Airport on behalf of Town Council. Commission/Board development characteristics for the Town’s review and consideration are presented below: Mandate: The Commission/Board will be responsible for decision making with respect to the operations, planning, maintenance, and development of the Airport. Reporting Structure: In the short-term it is recommended that the Airport Commission/Board report to Town Council on an annual or bi-annual basis to report on airport financial and development matters. Commission/Board Members: A Board comprised of a Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, and up to five Directors, all of whom represent a function critical to the operation and management of an airport (i.e. marketing, human resources, engineering, law, etc.). If representation on the Board by elected officials is strongly desired by Town Council, it is recommended that only one elected official be appointed, mainly to act as a communication conduit between Council and the Board. Airport Operations: An Airport Administrator responsible for the day-to-day management of the Airport. The Airport Administrator would report to the Chair of the Board and coordinate with the Town to provide required airport maintenance equipment and personnel. Under this model, airport staff may not be Town employees, but could be employees of a third-party service provider if determined to be financially feasible. Membership Term: A Board member’s term could be from 3-5 years. It is recommended that initially terms be offset to avoid all terms ending in the same year. This strategy assists in the Commission’s/Board’s collective preservation of knowledge.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 19

Evaluation: It is recommended that the success of the Commission/Board be measured to confirm if the governance model selected is appropriate and is achieving its goals. Performance indicators may include, but are not limited to: • financial performance (reduction in annual cost-revenue gaps); • timeframe for decision making (i.e. development approvals); • absorption rate of commercial lots; and • aircraft traffic. A combination of the above metrics will allow for a wholistic evaluation of Commission/Board performance. In addition, the overall medium to long term success of the Commission/Board can be measured by further reductions in annual cost-revenue gaps, further development of recreational and commercial facilities, and traffic growth at the Airport.

3.5 Partnership

Although an Airport Commission/Board is recommended for the future governance of Tillsonburg Regional Airport, it is crucial that the future ownership of, or financial responsibility for the Airport also be determined. Based on the existing airport ownership situation and considering Tillsonburg Regional Airport lands are outside the official Town limits, it is recommended that an airport funding partnership between the County of Oxford, the Township of South West Oxford, and the Town of Tillsonburg be established. The partnership should cover funding contribution (both ongoing and significant infrastructure improvements), nominating authorities for membership on a Commission/Board, and participation in decisions on development plans, marketing plans, and budgets. Building partnerships with the Township of South West Oxford and the County of Oxford may be challenging, especially considering their historic interest in the operation and development of Tillsonburg Regional Airport. Negotiating Strategies for approaching the County and Township are presented in Section 5.3.2.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 20

4 BASELINE AIRPORTS COMPARISON

4.1 Comparative Airport Selection

Key information was collected and analyzed for several airports in southern Ontario that are considered comparable to Tillsonburg Regional Airport from an airport role and traffic profile perspective. Table 4.1 identifies four airports within southern Ontario, and their current governance model. Table 4.1 – Governance Models: Southern Ontario Airports

Airport Owner Operator Governance Model City of Brantford Brantford Flying Club City Department Chatham-Kent Municipality of Z3 Aviation Municipal Department Chatham-Kent Niagara Central City of Welland, City of Niagara Central Airport Airport Commission Port Colbourn, Town of Commission Pelham, Wainfleet Township St. Thomas City of St. Thomas City of St. Thomas City Department Tillsonburg Town of Tillsonburg Town of Tillsonburg Town Department

As illustrated in Table 4.1, there are a variety of airport governance models currently in use at airports within southern Ontario. This demonstrates that each airport owner has selected a governance model for their facility that best fits the needs of the community. The effectiveness of airport governance models should not be measured simply by comparing one airport to another with a similar infrastructure and traffic profile. Several factors should be considered when identifying an appropriate airport governance model (e.g. how can the airport be best positioned to achieve economic growth, what options provide the most flexibility for external funding opportunities, are there several levels of municipal government that have a stake in the Airport, etc.). Consultations with each of the airports listed in Table 4.1 indicate a mix of both challenges and success factors with their governance models. For instance, one airport sited constraints to future development as a result of their current governance model, as approval is required from each of the three funding municipalities – limiting the potential for future airport development and attraction of new businesses to the airport as Council members can have conflicting opinions of the value of airport investment. Considering the above, the selection of an appropriate airport governance model is specific to each airport and should not be determined simply by comparison with other airports with similar airport infrastructure and air traffic profiles.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 21

4.2 Tillsonburg Regional Airport

Select comparators were identified for Tillsonburg Regional Airport to focus the Baseline Airports Comparison and aid the reader in better understanding competition in the General Aviation market in southern Ontario. Those comparators are presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 – Tillsonburg Regional Airport Characteristics for Comparison

Population Served 16,000 Runways (Asphalt) 3 (1) Longest Runway 5,502 ft (1,677 m) Owner Town of Tillsonburg Operator Town of Tillsonburg Aviation Fuel 100LL, JA-1 Best Published Approach (MDA) LNAV (416') Landing Fee No Facility Fee No Parking Fee 6/day Fuel Price (100 LL) $1.92

4.2.1 SWOT Analysis Research, analysis, stakeholder consultations and HM Aero’s understanding of the aviation markets and airports in southern Ontario was applied to identify the relevant Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats related to the current and future operation of Tillsonburg Regional Airport. Strengths • Runway length – at 5,502’, Tillsonburg has one of the longest runways for a regional or community airport within south-central Ontario. Of the comparator airports, it is matched only by Chatham-Kent. Runway length is of importance in attracting new aviation businesses or corporate users. A longer runway allows aviation businesses to accept larger aircraft and allows corporate users to access more markets with fewer stops for fuel. • New terminal building – the first impression of an airport for itinerant pilots or residents is often the terminal building. By accommodating a restaurant, the terminal building is now a gathering place for the community, as well as a destination for itinerant recreational aircraft. Furthermore, the presence of the restaurant allows local residents to visit the airport and can lead to more positive impressions of the facility within the community. • Anchor Tenant – consistent growth at an airport is often facilitated by an anchor tenant. CHAA’s specialty in WWII training aircraft maintenance and preservation has made Tillsonburg Regional Airport a destination for many aviation historians. These tenants regularly use the services of other aviation businesses at the Airport and can be crucial in developing an aviation supply chain.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 22

• Reputation as well-managed – consultations indicated that Tillsonburg Regional Airport has a strong reputation for being well-managed within the southern Ontario aviation community. This reputation is a form of marketing that can help to attract new businesses and tenants as well as itinerant pilots. • Far from noise sensitive land uses – because the Airport is approximately 4 kilometres from the Town limits and surrounded by agricultural lands, there is a small likelihood of complaints concerning aircraft noise as the Airport develops and activity levels increase. Weaknesses • Displaced threshold Runway 26 – the current operational runway length is restricted by the presence of obstacles (trees) prior to the threshold of Runway 26. In order for Tillsonburg Regional Airport to benefit from the full 5,502’ runway length, it is recommended that these trees be removed as soon as practicable. • Site servicing – the Airport lands are not provided with municipal services (e.g. potable water, sewer) from the Town and future capacity to provide electrical services to larger- scale aviation commercial operators is limited. To attract new businesses and tenants wanting to develop new facilities and business at the facility, the provision of site servicing should be considered (potentially addressed and costed within a formal Airport Master Plan). • Weather information – the Airport does not currently operate and maintain instrumentation to provide weather information services to aircraft operators. Consideration should be given to providing weather observation and reporting capability at the Airport. • Traffic congestion during peak periods – as only one taxiway connection is provided to connect the main apron to Runway 08-26, aircraft congestion can occur during peak periods when arriving aircraft are required to exit the runway environment, but the presence of an aircraft waiting to enter the runway restricts aircraft flow. Opportunities • Partnership with CHAA – an opportunity could be explored for the Airport to partner with CHAA to highlight the historical significance of Tillsonburg Regional Airport and its role as a BCATP training facility. Tillsonburg Regional Airport could be further marketed as a destination for aviation historians within Canada, and internationally. • OPP support facilities – consultations indicated the possibility of the Ontario Provincial Police increasing their activity at Tillsonburg Regional Airport, potentially via the development of a new hangar facility (or through a lease agreement). The OPP has a forensics lab in Tillsonburg and the OPP operates the Ontario Police College in nearby Aylmer Ontario. Tillsonburg Regional Airport is the closest airport to these OPP operations, and there is a potential for increased personnel transport via air, or to better support aerial speed enforcement activities on nearby Highway 401. Furthermore, OPP Aviation Services operate helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft to support search and rescue (SAR); support of specialized units; support during public demonstrations; transportation of personnel; advanced operational photography; search and containment of escapees; regional traffic or crime initiatives; drug eradication; and evidence searches. These could also be potential opportunities for Tillsonburg Regional Airport.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 23

• Airport business expansion – the quality of the aviation businesses at Tillsonburg Regional Airport may allow the Airport to grow through the expansion of the current businesses as well as attraction of new business. Threats • Competitor airports – there are many airports in southern Ontario serving similar roles and competing for the same business opportunities. While Tillsonburg Regional Airport does have some unique characteristics, it does not differ significantly from its competitors. Identifying and exploiting a competitive advantage will be important for future business development at Tillsonburg Regional Airport. • Availability of funding – while the Airport is performing well financially (based on HM Aero’s experience working with similar airports across Canada), future capital projects will require external funding or grants. Because Tillsonburg Regional Airport does not have scheduled passenger services, there are limited grants or programs that can be accessed for capital funding.

4.3 Comparative Analysis

Four airports were selected for comparison with Tillsonburg Regional Airport based on nine specific criteria, including but not limited to: airport certification, number of runways, longest runway, aviation fuel provided, lowest IFP minima, landing fees, facility fees, parking fees, and fuel prices. For the purpose of the Feasibility Analysis study, the following four airports were selected as suitable comparisons to Tillsonburg based on their general infrastructure and traffic profiles: 1. Brantford Airport; 2. Chatham-Kent Airport; 3. Niagara Central Dorothy Rungeling Airport; and 4. St Thomas Municipal Airport. An analysis of comparative airports is presented in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 – Comparative Airport Analysis Airport Brantford Chatham-Kent Niagara St. Thomas Tillsonburg Central

Certified/Registered Registered Certified Registered Certified Registered Runways (Asphalt) 3 (3) 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 3 (1) Longest Runway 5036 ft 5502 ft 3493 ft 5013 ft 5502 ft (1535 m) (1677 m) (1065 m) (1528 m) (1677 m) Aviation Fuel 100LL, JA-1 100LL, JA-1 100LL, JA-1 100LL, JA-1 100LL, JA-1 Lowest IFP Minima LNAV (448') LPV (250') LNAV (519') LPV (250') LNAV (416’) (MDA) Landing Fee None None None None None Facility Fee None None None $95/day None (turboprop) Parking Fee No $10/night None $10/day $6/day Fuel Price (100LL) $1.99 $2.20 $2.14 $1.95 $1.92

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 24

4.4 Findings

HM Aero’s review of the selected comparator airports identified the following findings: 1. With three runways and one equal in length to the longest of the comparator airports, Tillsonburg Regional Airport is equipped with competitive airfield infrastructure that can be further utilized and expanded to support increased business and economic development within the region. 2. All the comparator airports offer aviation fuel for sale with Tillsonburg Regional Airport having significantly the lowest 100LL price. 3. All the comparator airports have Instrument Flight Procedures (IFPs) providing increased airport availability during periods of poor weather and/or visibility. Relative to the comparators, Tillsonburg Regional Airport supports an LNAV IFP to Runway with a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) of 416’ AGL. This level of airport availability could be improved through commissioning of an obstacle survey and tree removal program. Chatham-Kent and St. Thomas have the IFPs with the lowest MDAs (250’). Lower MDAs allow aircraft to access an airport in poorer weather conditions. Providing lower MDAs increases overall annual airport availability and is an attractive feature when marketing facilities to new businesses considering relocating to the site. 4. The fee structures at the comparator airports varies widely. Most do not charge a landing fee for light aircraft, and approximately half charge an overnight parking fee. One comparator airport currently charges a facility fee (combination landing and terminal fee) to commercially registered turbine aircraft.

Westerly View of Main Apron – Tillsonburg Regional Airport

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 25

5 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND REVENUE STRATEGY

5.1 Budget Sustainability

The success of many regional airports in Canada is measured not in the profit generated, but their financial sustainability. The goal of most airports is to be financially self-sufficient and therefore not require grants or subsidies from the communities they serve. Depending on the environment in which the airport operates and the population it serves, the services it provides, and the management and governance structure in place, there may be considerable challenges to achieving this goal. The goal of most airports is not necessarily to be financially profitable, but to facilitate greater economic benefit in a region. Though an airport may be perceived as a draw on municipal resources, it is crucial to understand that the expenses accrued at an airport are frequently offset by economic gains within the community. These economic gains often far outweigh an airport’s operating deficit (as described within the Economic Impact section of this report). HM Aero has completed a financial performance review at Tillsonburg Regional Airport for the past five years to evaluate the financial sustainability of the facility. A summary of the Airport’s operating costs and revenues as well as the overall financial situation are presented below.

5.1.1 Revenue Revenue at the Airport is generated in a variety of ways including, but not limited to: • fuel sales; • aircraft parking fees; and • land and other rentals. Overall, revenue has decreased steadily over the past five years. During this period fuel sales have declined year over year and revenue from land rentals has varied widely. The revenue from aircraft parking fees was not an individual line item within the financial breakdown provided to HM Aero, but it believed to be relatively small compared to fuel sales and land rentals.

5.1.2 Expense The items contributing most to the expenses at the Airport include: • salary and wages; • materials and inventory; • subconsultant expenses; and • debt (principal and interest). Like revenue, expenses have also decreased steadily over the past five years. While this may be the result of the decrease in revenue (e.g. lower fuel sales require less fuel to be purchased), it also appears to be the result of fiscal responsibility. For example, salary and wages increased year over year until 2018, where it dropped sharply suggesting management’s efforts to avoid increasing annual deficits were successful. Subconsultant expenses have ranged from $26,000 to $44,000 since 2015. The requirement for small and regional airports to rely on consultants is a common practice as tasks like preparing master plans require specialized skills, but those skills are only needed every 5 to 10 years. Finally, debt as an operating expense has remained constant between $35,000 and $42,000 during this period.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 26

5.1.3 Current Financial Situation Generally, the Airport’s financial position is considered to be strong based on HM Aero’s understanding of the facility and how its financial position compares to similar airports in Canada. The Tillsonburg Regional Airport has been successful in managing expenses relative to revenues, which has resulted in a consistent annual deficit. A summary of the Airport’s recorded revenues and expenses for the past five years is presented in Table 5.1 and illustrated in Figure 5.1. While managing expenses versus revenue is one means of controlling deficits, the Airport should also investigate a revenue strategy to increase revenues and reduce or eliminate the gap between expenses and revenues. HM Aero has identified a high-level revenue strategy for Tillsonburg Regional Airport in Section 5.2; however, a more detailed revenue generation strategy should be prepared as part of a formal Airport Master Plan. Table 5.1 – Tillsonburg Regional Airport Actual and Budgeted Finances – 2015-2019

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget General Revenue $381,054 $316,713 $289,922 $269,726 $265,000 Expense $533,614 $475,022 $499,458 $422,135 $404,400 General Subtotal -$152,560 -$158,309 -$209,536 -$152,409 -$139,400 Land Rentals Revenue $91,012 $146,530 $154,600 $105,600 $104,900 Expense $8,937 $15,370 $12,666 $11,137 $- Land Rentals Subtotal $82,075 $131,160 $141,934 $94,463 $104,900 Building Maintenance Revenue $4,320 $4,320 $6,960 $29,668 $6,000 Expense $18,617 $28,927 $23,167 $31,513 $24,400 Building Maintenance Subtotal -$14,297 -$24,607 -$16,207 -$1,845 -$18,400

Total Revenue $476,386 $467,563 $451,482 $404,994 $375,900 Total Expense $561,168 $519,319 $535,291 $464,785 $428,800 TOTAL -$84,782 -$51,756 -$83,809 -$59,791 -$52,900

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 27

Figure 5.1 – Tillsonburg Regional Airport Revenue and Expense – 2015-2019

$600,000

$500,000

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

$- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Net Revenue Net Expenses

Following review of the Airport’s financial performance and considering the Airport’s potential to become a stronger economic driver within the region, it is recommended that the Town not divest the Airport but investigate the implementation of a Revenue Strategy to reduce or potentially eliminate the annual operating deficit.

5.2 Revenue Strategy

The Revenue Strategy presented below intends to increase the Airport’s net revenues by altering the current fee structure and by introducing new revenue streams where appropriate. The Strategy considers both aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues.

5.2.1 Current Aeronautical Revenues Aviation Fuel Surcharge Review of competing airports suggests Tillsonburg Regional Airport can increase 100LL fuel prices and still be competitive within the marketplace. A preliminary scan supports increasing the price of 100LL by $0.02/L. This increase would maintain the Airport’s competitive advantage while generating additional revenue. Aircraft Parking Fee The Airport currently charges $6/day for aircraft parking. Comparable airports either do not charge a parking fee or charge $10/day. It is recommended that the Airport increase the parking fee from $6/day to $10/day and increase the monthly parking fee from $42 to $70. This strategy could decrease the operating deficit while not increasing operating expenses.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 28

Landing/Facility Fees The Airport does not currently charge a landing fee. Comparable to St. Thomas, the Airport should consider the application of a facilities fee to commercially registered turbine aircraft. Records indicate that the Airport serves approximately 50 corporate or commercially registered aircraft per year including DND, OPP, MNR, and other charters. It is recommended that a facility fee be implemented at $100/day, and the aircraft operator be compensated 1 day of fee per visit if a minimum value of fuel is purchased. It is estimated that this fee could yield noticeable revenue increase in the future. The Airport should also consider charging landing/facility fees to air ambulance operators (such as Ornge), a similar practice amongst comparable airports in Ontario. Commercial Land Rental Rate The Airport currently charges $0.29/sq. ft./year for commercial land. While comparable to other airports, there may be an opportunity to increase the rate marginally ($0.03-$0.04). While not a significant increase to an existing or prospective tenant, this strategy has the potential to have significant positive impacts on future revenue generation, especially as additional tenants and businesses establish at the Airport. Other Aeronautical Revenues The following fees were reviewed and determined to be appropriate. It is recommended that these fees be monitored and adjusted for inflation annually: • Fuel Call-Out Fee; • Boardroom Rental Fee; • Infrastructure Fee; • Airport Maintenance Fee; • Airport Administration Fee; and • Hangar Application Fee. It is important to note that local airport users and tenants may oppose any increases to airport fees; however, clear communications to the airport tenants and users as to the intent and benefit of the rate increases (funding capital improvements, planning studies, etc.) is recommended to mitigate potential negative impacts.

5.2.2 New Aeronautical Revenues Special Events Tillsonburg Regional Airport currently hosts some special events. It is recommended that the Airport plan or encourage the planning of additional special events for two reasons: 1. To increase revenue for the Airport and the community through fuel sales, parking, (landing fee may be charged or waived), food sales at restaurant, hotels, car rentals, etc. 2. To increase public exposure of the Airport. Develop Aircraft Hangars Consideration of constructing Town owned aircraft hangars as an opportunity to increase revenue, through the leasing of hangar space (although developers should still be permitted to develop their own facilities on leased airport lands). Prior to investing in a capital project of this scope, HM Aero recommends the following steps:

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 29

1. Complete a detailed Business Case that demonstrates the financial feasibility of hangar construction including, but not limited to: a. number of hangars proposed; b. cost of construction and operation; c. proposed lease rate and term; d. minimum sustainable occupancy; e. market demand; f. timeframe for ROI; and g. risk assessment. 2. Complete an Airport Master Plan to determine appropriate locations for Town owned hangar development

5.2.3 Current Non-Aeronautical Revenues Agricultural Land Rental The agricultural land leases on Airport undergo a competitive tender process every five years with the highest bid selected. The lease rates of these lands are lower on average than other lands in the County due to poor drainage. This process is appropriate and it is recommended that it continue.

5.2.4 New Non-Aeronautical Revenues There are also non-aeronautical revenue opportunities that are not currently collected by Tillsonburg Regional Airport. These revenues are identified and detailed below. Sell Portion of Non-Aviation Lands To fund a capital program or to pay off debts, the Airport may elect to sell a portion of its non- aviation lands. This strategy may result in a large, but one-time cash inflow. This strategy has been used by the Airport previously to fund taxiway improvements. While effective, this strategy is not a sustainable solution and can only generate revenue until surplus lands are exhausted. An Airport Master Plan should be completed prior to selecting lands to sell to protect for the long-term development of the Airport. Request Increase in County of Oxford Contribution The Town of Tillsonburg could solicit an increase in the annual contribution from the County of Oxford. The annual contribution currently provided by the County is $5,000. While this contribution aids in the operation of the airport, it appears to be an arbitrary amount not tied to a metric (e.g. population). However, it is important that the value of any requested increase be justifiable and consider the Airport’s current financial performance. It would also be beneficial to demonstrate what the County gains from further supporting the Airport, as well as identifying the facility within their Transportation Master Plan. Solicit Contribution from the Township of South West Oxford The Town may also elect to solicit a contribution from the Township of South West Oxford. Because Tillsonburg Regional Airport is within the Township, the Township collects tax revenue from the Town and the airport tenants. While these tax revenues do contribute to fire suppression at the Airport, the Airport may wish to request an annual contribution or a percentage of the tax revenue. As with the County, it would also be beneficial to demonstrate what the Township would gain from supporting the Airport.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 30

Additional Non-Aeronautical Revenue Other non-aeronautical revenue options that the Airport may want to consider include: • RV and boat storage; • warehousing; • self-storage; • freight forwarding; and • solar energy generation It is important to note that, while additional non-aeronautical revenue methods may increase the Airport’s revenue, it also results in those tenants or businesses paying tax to the Township. If it is not necessary for a business to be located at the Airport, the Town may wish to promote businesses establishing within the Town limits.

5.3 Negotiation Strategy

5.3.1 Background A negotiation is a discussion aimed at reaching an agreement while avoiding argument or dispute. There are several issues of interest to the Town of Tillsonburg, Oxford County, and the Township of South West Oxford including airport financing, airport ownership, revenue sharing, and future airport development (among others). These issues will need to be resolved to allow the Airport to grow and become a greater economic generator for the Town, Township, and County. There have previously been discussions that did not result in an agreement amongst the parties. To have all three governments participate appropriately in the development of Tillsonburg Regional Airport, some form of negotiation will be necessary. There are three major elements in a negotiation: • process; • behaviour; and • substance. Process determines how the negotiation will unfold. Will it be a one on one negotiation, a group on group discussion, a single meeting, or a series of meetings? This must be determined and agreed by all parties. Behaviour identifies who will be involved and how they will act. The persons involved need to be objective and trusted by all parties and have the requisite negotiating skills (e.g. listening, focus, composure, etc.). Substance is what is being negotiated – what are the issues available for discussion and what are the issues not available? This will include determining the needs of both parties (i.e. what do they wish to achieve), developing a list of possible solutions that may work for both parties, and choosing the most appropriate solution. The Town of Tillsonburg will need to identify the substance prior to initiating the negotiation process. This will require research and agreement by the appropriate Councils.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 31

The potential issues that may form part of the Town of Tillsonburg’s negotiation strategy are financial support (ongoing and large projects), ownership, access to decision making (Board membership), and municipal servicing and services. Currently, the County’s and Township’s issues of concern are unknown. It is important to know these issues prior to selecting a negotiating strategy. In a negotiation, four principles must be kept in mind: 1. You must separate the people from the problem. The issues should be decided on merit rather than influenced by emotion. 2. It is important to focus on the interest of the negotiating parties and not their positions. What are the issues being negotiating and not the current stated position of the parties? 3. Do not be too narrow in the definition of the potential issues for negotiation. It is necessary to generate options that are mutually beneficial. 4. The outcome of the negotiation should be based on objective criteria, not who won and lost on any issue.

5.3.2 Negotiating Strategies There are effectively five strategies for negotiation: 1. Competitive; 2. Collaborative; 3. Compromising; 4. Avoiding; and 5. Accommodating. The Competitive strategy is an approach where one party wins at the expense of the other. This is sometimes referred to as a win-lose or the Bargaining approach. It assumes compromise is not an option and there is a fixed amount of assets to negotiate. If one wins the other must lose. The Collaborative strategy is an approach characterized by an “I win you win” goal with both parties having their needs met. This strategy is often used when trying to build a long-term partnership. The Compromise strategy assumes both parties can give something up to achieve an acceptable outcome. One party must convince the other to settle for less than everything they want to resolve the remaining issues. The Avoiding strategy is a conflict laden approach. It assumes one party ignores the other parties’ wishes to achieve their own goals. This is seldom successful unless one party has all the power in the negotiation. Finally, the Accommodating strategy is characterized by an “I lose you win” approach. It is used when the interest of one party has caused harm to the other party and the relationship needs to be repaired.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 32

5.3.3 Analysis In the case of involvement of the County and Township in the financing and decision-making aspects of Tillsonburg Regional Airport, the Competitive, Avoiding, and Accommodating approaches are not the most appropriate strategies. Any negotiation concerning the Tillsonburg Regional Airport will require some compromise by all parties. Therefore, a Competitive strategy is not likely to succeed. The Avoiding approach may quickly lead to conflict and the deterioration of relationships. Because none of the three parties have had harm done to them, the Accommodating approach may well be desirable for the County and Township but would not be in the best interest of the Town of Tillsonburg. It is recommended that the Town consider the Collaborative or Compromising strategies for negotiations with the County and Township. Which of these two is selected will depend on the process, behaviour, and substance identified by the Town.

5.3.4 Recommended Strategy A framework of the recommended negotiation strategy has been prepared defining the high- level steps to: • discuss Township and County participation in governance; • negotiate financial contributions; and • and initiate a new governance model. These steps are presented in Figure 5.2 and are detailed below. Figure 5.2 – Recommended Negotiating Strategy Framework

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 33

Present Feasibility Analysis Study to SWOX and Oxford County It is recommended that the Town arrange to present the Feasibility Analysis Study to the Township and County (either together or separately), to identify the study objectives, findings, and recommendations. These presentations will be an opportunity to update the parties on the current activity and businesses located at the Airport as well as the benefit the Airport brings to the Town, Township, and County. Examples of these benefits include, but are not limited to: • Local Employment – there are businesses located at the Airport that employee residents of the Town, Township, and County. With respect the aviation businesses, these jobs are highly skilled and specialized. • Economic Benefit – In addition to the Full-time Equivalent (FTE) positions generated by the on-airport businesses, the Airport also attracts itinerant aircraft through flight training and other General Aviation activities. These pilots often make purchases on- airport (e.g. aviation fuel, restaurant) as well as in the Town, Township, and County (e.g. hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, rental cars, etc.). • Access to Corporate Aircraft – numerous organizations have accessed the region using corporate aircraft via Tillsonburg Regional Airport in support of ongoing business in the region, or business development. Additionally, corporations have previously elected to use the facilities in the terminal building to conduct business. • Access to Government Services – numerous government agencies make regular use of Tillsonburg Regional Airport including, but not limited to: o ORNGE Air Ambulance; o Department of National Defence (DND); o Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR); and o Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). • Community Gathering Place – both aviation enthusiasts and the general public gather at the airport to access the aviation facilities as well as the restaurant, which is the only restaurant in the Township. Additionally, these presentations may be an opportunity to initiate preliminary discussions on ‘substance’ or issues of interest of the Township and County. It is recommended that these presentations be made to the respective CAOs of the Township and County. Confirm Willingness to Participate in Airport Governance Either during the discussions following the presentations or thereafter, the it is recommended that the Town demonstrate to the Township and County the benefits of participation in the governance of the Airport. The primary benefit is the opportunity to participate in the decision- making process with respect to the operations, planning, and development of the facility and the ability to align the asset to the objectives of the respective municipalities. The objective of these discussions is to confirm the parties’ willingness to participate in the governance of the Airport in principal.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 34

Negotiate Financial Contributions Negotiations of financial contributions are recommended to occur in parallel to discussions concerning participation in governance. Prior to these negotiations, it is important to understand the causes of the annual operating deficit in detail and the financial contributions expected of the parties. The Town should also have an expectation of the issues or substance the Township and County may bring forward as well as their potential responses (i.e. there may be certain desires from the Township and the County that the Town can provided that are not related to the Airport that could be used as part of financial negotiation process). Additionally, to negotiate financial contributions with the County, it will be critical to understand the rationale for their current annual contribution before hand. Draft Terms of the Governance and Contribution Structure Following agreement on participation in governance and annual financial contribution (and assuming that the Township and the Town agree to further involvement in the Airport), the parties should collaborate to draft the respective terms of the agreement. Terms will include number of members of the Commission/Board, representation of each party, and value of the financial contributions. Initiate Commission/Board Governance Model Following agreement on the terms of the governance and contribution structure, Commission/Board by-laws should be drafted and a Commission/Board established.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 35

6 AERODROME SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

The following sections describe security requirements as they apply to certified airports and registered aerodromes, relevant prohibitions provided in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs), the implications of these prohibitions, and recommendations related to aerodrome security. The intent of this section is to clarify the Town of Tillsonburg’s regulatory responsibilities in regard to operating a registered aerodrome in Canada.

6.1 Aerodromes, Registered Aerodromes, and Certified Airports

6.1.1 Aerodromes An aerodrome is defined by the Aeronautics Act as: Any area of land, water (including the frozen surface thereof) or other supporting surface used, designed, prepared, equipped or set apart for use either in whole or in part for the arrival, departure, movement or servicing of aircraft and includes any buildings, installations and equipment situated thereon or associated therewith. An unregistered aerodrome in Canada is not obligated to satisfy aerodrome security requirements.

6.1.2 Registered Aerodromes Canadian Aviation Regulations (SOR/96-433) Part III Subpart 1 defines the requirements for an aerodrome to be registered. A summary of the requirements as detailed in CAR 301.01 through 301.07 and CAR 301.09 is presented below: Inspection – The operator of an aerodrome shall, at the request of a Transport Canada inspector, allow the inspector access to aerodrome facilities. Registration – An aerodrome may be registered in the Canada Flight Supplement if the aerodrome operator provides Transport Canada information including the location, markings, lighting, use and operation of the aerodrome. Markers and Markings – Appropriate markers or markings must be provided when a manoeuvring area (runway, taxiway, apron) is closed. Warning Notices – the operator of the aerodrome must post notices warning of the hazard on any public way that is adjacent to the manoeuvring area where low-flying or taxiing aircraft are likely to be hazardous to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Wind Direction Indicator – the operator of the aerodrome must install and maintain at the aerodrome a wind direction indicator except where the direction of the wind can be determined by radio or other means such as smoke movement in the air or wind lines on water. Lighting – If used at night, the operator is required to provide appropriate lighting or retro- reflective markers to indicate the edge of runways, taxiways, or other manoeuvring areas and to denote manoeuvring areas that or closed or otherwise unusable. Fire Prevention – no person shall, while at an aerodrome, smoke or display an open flame: on an apron, on an aircraft loading bridge, or in an area where doing so may create a fire hazard unless authorized or permitted by the operator.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 36

Based on a site inspection, stakeholder consultations and a review of current aeronautical publications, Tillsonburg Regional Airport is meeting all of the requirements for registered aerodromes, as per the CARs.

6.1.3 Certified Airports As stated in Transport Canada’s Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), with respect to aerodromes that have been issued a certificate and are therefore “certified”, the objective is to protect the fare-paying public and residents in the vicinity of an airport who do not have the knowledge or ability to protect themselves and who could be affected by unsafe operations. This is achieved through ensuring sites are inspected periodically for compliance with Transport Canada standards for the following elements and services recorded in the Airport/Heliport Operations Manual: • obstacle limitation surfaces; • physical characteristics; marking, lighting, maintenance procedures; and • emergency response services, etc.

6.2 Prohibitions

In addition to CAR 301.01 – 301.07 and CAR 301.09, which are requirements that must be satisfied by the aerodrome operator to be registered, CAR 301.08 lists prohibitions which must be adhered to by everyone, and not only the operator. A sample of these prohibitions provided below state that no person shall: • walk, stand, drive a vehicle, park a vehicle or aircraft or cause an obstruction on the movement area of an aerodrome, except in accordance with permission given by the operator or air traffic control unit or flight service station. • Tow an aircraft at night or park an aircraft on an active manoeuvring area at night unless the aircraft displays the appropriate lighting. • remove, deface, extinguish or interfere with a marker, marking, light or signal that is used air navigation. • display a marker, marking, light or signal that is likely to cause a person to believe that a place other than an aerodrome is an aerodrome. • Allow a bird or animal to be unrestrained within the boundaries of an aerodrome unless to control other birds or animals as permitted by the operator.

6.3 Implications for Tillsonburg Regional Airport

Because Tillsonburg Regional Airport is a registered aerodrome, the Airport is required to adhere to the standards identified in CAR 301.01-301.07 and 301.09. Additionally, airport staff, tenants, users, and the general public are required to satisfy the prohibitions listed in CAR 301.08. However, regulations do not state that an operator of a registered aerodrome is obligated to enforce the prohibitions at all times. Of course, during staffed hours, the operator would intervene if one of the prohibited activities were observed, but 24-hour security staffing or monitoring is not a regulatory requirement at Tillsonburg Airport.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 37

However, as stated in the AIM: Aerodrome operators are encouraged, in the interest of aviation safety, efficiency, and convenience, to improve their aerodromes beyond the basic regulatory requirements using, as guidelines, the standards and recommended practices applicable for the certification of aerodromes as airports, heliports, or water airports. Aerodrome users are, however, reminded that the improvement of aerodrome physical characteristics, visual aids, lighting, and markings beyond the basic regulatory requirements for aerodromes stated in CAR301 is a matter of individual aerodrome operators’ initiative.

6.4 Aerodrome Security Recommendations

Following review of the airport site and analysis of the applicable regulations, it is recommended that Tillsonburg Regional Airport consider the following actions: 1. Establish a Primary Security Line (PSL) As defined in the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, a Primary Security Line is the boundary between a restricted area and a non-restricted area at an aerodrome. Though not required at a registered aerodrome, a PSL, accompanied by fencing and access gates, would help to establish a restricted area and discourage airside access by those not permitted by the operator. This may help address some of concerns raised about airside access. 2. Identify PSL Partners A PSL partner is a business, organization or non-profit that occupies an area that is on an aerodrome’s primary security line and that includes a restricted area access point. For example, a commercial lessee on an aerodrome. Understanding who these partners will be and ensuring they understand their obligation as a PSL partner is critical before the decision is made to establish a PSL. Establishing a PSL without the buy-in of all tenants and users will not yield the desired result. 3. Develop an Airport Master Plan It is recommended that the Airport develop an Airport Master Plan prior to the establishment of a PSL. Having a plan for future airside commercial development will allow for the installation of fencing and gates one time and reduced expensive removals and installations resulting from disorganized or ad hoc development. 4. Review Aerodrome Signage In the short-term, it is recommended that a review of aerodrome signage in the core area be conducted to confirm that existing signage effectively indicates a delineation between airside and groundside areas of the Airport.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 38

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusions

1. Tillsonburg Regional Airport is a valuable asset and the Airport is performing well financially. The cost/revenue gap within the financial information is relatively small compared to many regional and municipal airports in Canada. 2. The economic benefit of the Airport is greater than the on-airport (direct) impacts alone. Airports are important assets to a community and a region, and this message should be conveyed amongst the Councils of the Town of Tillsonburg, the County of Oxford and the Township of South West Oxford. 3. Tillsonburg Regional Airport provides adequate facilities to attract additional aviation activity and business development at the site. Its proximity to Toronto, the 5,502’ runway length (once trees are removed), the availability of development lands, and competitive fees makes it a strong competitor in south-central Ontario. 4. There are opportunities available to decrease the expense-revenue gap through changes in the current airport fee structure, and potentially through the development of additional hangars and commercial businesses. 5. The governance structure had previously not facilitated quick decision making and hindered business development at Tillsonburg Regional Airport. Recently, changes were made to the decision-making process with respect to hangar development whereby an in- house development process has been created. 6. The Township and County benefit from the Airport and should consider contribution to the funding of the Airport. Residents of the County and the Township benefit from the presence of Tillsonburg Regional Airport and only the residents of the Town of Tillsonburg financially support the Airport. 7. The future growth and development of the Airport should be consistent with a long-term plan, connected with the local economy. 8. The Airport is not in violation of the CARs in terms of enforcing airport security provisions, but some improvements could be made concerning security.

7.2 Recommendations

Immediate and Short-term recommendations are presented below in order of priority: Immediate Recommendations 1. Review Aerodrome Signage – In the short-term (prior to a Primary Security Line being established), it is recommended that a review of aerodrome signage in the core area be conducted to confirm that existing signage effectively indicates a delineation between airside and groundside areas of the Airport. 2. Investigate Tree Removal Prior to Threshold of Runway 26 – The operational runway length of Runway 26 is restricted by the presence of trees prior to the threshold. This results in a displacement of the runway threshold by 1,000’ (reducing the Landing Distance Available to 4,502’), and potential takeoff restrictions on Runway 08 for larger aircraft. For Tillsonburg Regional Airport to market and benefit from the full 5,502’ runway length, it is recommended that the removal of these trees be investigated as soon as practicable.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 39

3. Complete a Hangar Development Business Case – Prior to constructing new Town- owned hangars to be leased, a business case should be completed to confirm that this investment would yield a financial return. Short-Term Recommendations 4. Implement a Negotiation Strategy – Negotiate with the County of Oxford and Township of South West Oxford to determine their desire for participation in governance and increased funding contributions. It is recommended that the Town consider the collaborative or compromising strategies for negotiations with the County and Township. The most appropriate approach will be dependent on the substance or issues identified for the Township and County. 5. Implement a Revenue Strategy – There may be an opportunity to reduce or eliminate the cost-revenue gap through the implementation of a revised revenue strategy, including examining the current fee structure. Improved revenue strategies would be identified within an Airport Master Plan. 6. Implement an Airport Commission/Board Governance Model – Based on the role and size of Tillsonburg Regional Airport, an Airport Commission/Board was ranked as the most appropriate governance model. A Commission/Board for Tillsonburg Regional Airport should be given the authority by Town Council to manage, operate, develop and market the Airport, with appropriate goal setting and achievement measurements. Divestiture of the Airport has not been identified as an attractive option for the Town, as the facility acts as an economic driver for the region and is performing well financially. 7. Complete an Airport Master Plan – An Airport Master Plan is a strategic study used to define the long-term progressive development of an airport. Tillsonburg Regional Airport does not currently have a Master Plan, which could be hindering the rate of business growth at the facility (e.g. the availability of development-ready lands, identification of marketing tools to promote business growth at the facility, etc.). An Airport Master Plan would examine all potential future business opportunities and markets for the airport and would define and cost infrastructure development requirements and a comprehensive Land Use Plan. 8. Establish a Primary Security Line – Though not obligated, the Airport should define a Primary Security Line to better delineate the airside and groundside. Establishment of a Primary Security Line is recommended as part of the development of an Airport Master Plan whereby fence locations can be identified that support short, medium- and long-term developments, with minimal future relocations required.

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 40

Appendix A - TAAC Terms of Reference

Tillsonburg Regional Airport Feasibility Analysis Study 41