📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 13 findings
F1
Page 171
The airport does not generate enough revenues to be self sufficient.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 171
Lampson Fields operating revenues are very low for an airport of this size and character.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 171
There is no terminal facility for local or transient visitors on airport or private property.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 171
The surrounding buildings that are within the fenced area of the airport are well utilized by fixed based operations (local businesses).
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 171
The flight school at Lampson Field would see some benefit from the runway expansion to a B2 runway.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 171
Economic development on airport property under county control will help the airport become self funded.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 171
The development of a class B2 runway either east-west or north-south through the purchase of surrounding properties needs to be addressed. Planning and Public Works Committee
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 172
Pilots should have a major say in the development of the plan for runway expansion.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 172
The current location of Lampson Field is economically sound and ideal for expansion.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 172
Two other possible sites for airport expansion mentioned in the 1993 Master Plan are not economically viable in today’s economy.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Page 172
While development of a primary site, more central to all of Lake County, might increase overall airport use, the current location serves the public well and the land surrounding it is compatible for expansion.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Page 172
The county and the complainant both want a better airport with better facilities at the current location. Project priorities, location of facilities and funding sources differ in opinion.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
Page 172
Determine the best solution for the B2 runway and include findings before adopting the new airport master plan. (F12, F13)
R2
Page 172
Consider updating the AWOS as the first priority. (F12, F13) Agency/Department(s) Required to Respond: Planning and Public Works Department via Board of Supervisors (90 days)
F13
Page 172
The difference between the expansion of the existing east-west runway to a Class B2 and the creation of a north-south Class B2 runway should be reviewed by professionals in airport construction. A recommendation for the best choice should be made.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
Page 172
Determine the best solution for the B2 runway and include findings before adopting the new airport master plan. (F12, F13)
R2
Page 172
Consider updating the AWOS as the first priority. (F12, F13) Agency/Department(s) Required to Respond: Planning and Public Works Department via Board of Supervisors (90 days)