Commission debates future of airport parcel east of terminal amid private FBO talks

Middleton’s Airport Commission devoted an extended portion of its June 4 meeting to the long-term vision for the vacant parcel immediately east of the municipal terminal, grappling with competing priorities: preserving a public viewing area and enabling private development potentially tied to a proposed FBO lease.

The commission’s discussion was prompted by staff materials from the airport master plan and a pending proposal from a business referred to repeatedly in the meeting as Capital/Capitol Flight. Commissioners asked whether federal funding through the FAA — and technical review by the state Bureau of Aeronautics (BOA) — would affect the city’s ability to develop the parcel or to secure grants for renovation or expansion of the existing terminal.

“Can we get funding to expand the terminal to the east?” a commissioner asked, urging staff to seek BOA guidance. City staff (Brian) said he has posed that question to the BOA and will follow up; the commission requested a clear answer about whether federal grants or environmental requirements would limit future options.

Beyond funding, technical safety constraints shaped the discussion. Staff described how the airport layout plan shows the site could be suitable for a viewing area under the airport’s current configuration, but that a hypothetical future north–south paved runway of significant length would put parts of the parcel into a runway protection zone (RPZ). “If the airport were to build a 3,000‑foot north–south paved runway, putting anything in that spot would run into an RPZ,” a staff member told the commission.

Several commissioners argued a public viewing area is an important community amenity. “It feels essential to have a viewing area that people can just come and be able to be there,” Commissioner Randall said, adding she wants the commission to preserve public access even as it considers development options. Other members pushed back that preserving that space should not indefinitely block economic development that could strengthen the airport’s fiscal health.

The panel also discussed operational trade-offs if a private hangar or FBO were built on the east parcel: at least two existing tie‑down spaces would likely be lost; runup and ramp patterns might change; and an FAA rule change that will remove a direct access point from an active runway could concentrate traffic at the main ramp entrance, increasing congestion in front of a new building. Commissioner Schwarz noted that the BOA provides data on operations (Brian said Meen Hunt compiles operations data that feeds BOA reports) and asked staff to explore how frequent or regular operations reporting could be made available to the commission.

Several commissioners proposed alternatives to preserve both community access and development potential: locate the FBO or hangar slightly west or south of the proposed east parcel, relocate a permanent viewing area to another part of airport property (including north of future hangars), or use other developable parcels near the snow‑removal building where ramp impacts would be less pronounced. Staff and commissioners agreed the next steps are to get BOA/FAA guidance on funding constraints and RPZ limits, seek clarification of how far the BOA would permit development without endangering future runway options, and to continue discussions with the private applicant’s attorney to reconcile competing timelines.

The commission did not take a binding vote on leasing or development at the June 4 meeting. Members asked staff to return with BOA input on federal funding eligibility and RPZ implications, and to report back on how a proposed private lease would interact with any public‑interest conditions the commission might request (for example, a guaranteed public viewing area).

The commission expects the discussion to continue at a future meeting once staff have BOA/FAA guidance and legal counsel has had further discussions with the private applicant’s representatives.