There’s a recommended redevelopment plan for a CT airport. See how it stacks up with alternatives.

HARTFORD —  Closing Hartford-Brainard Airport for either industrial or mixed-use redevelopment is possible, but it could cost tens of millions of dollars to rid the 200-acre airfield of contamination and it could take years to fully reap property tax and economic development potential, a new study concludes.

Instead, as expected, the Brainard Airport Property Study recommends keeping the airport open and extending one of its runways. But this alternative — one of four outlined in a final report — calls for the closing of a lesser-used runway and redeveloping the area primarily for warehouse and industrial uses. That would build on what already exists in and around the airport in the city’s South End, according to the study.

“The closure of the Hartford-Brainard Airport is definitely feasible, but it introduces a complex element that could significantly affect the investment returns in any situation, given the state wouldn’t achieve any potential advantages for several years due to the indeterminate time required for the airport shutdown,” the report said.

The report — the culmination of a $1.5 million, state-funded study by BFJ Planning of New York over eight months — was a bit anti-climactic because its conclusion was contained in a draft report whose recommendation surfaced earlier in October.

State Sen. John Fonfara, a proponent of the study and of mixed-used redevelopment on the airfield, said Tuesday he was “seriously disappointed” with the report. The report did not delve deeply enough into what the economic spin-off of Brainard is today and what redevelopment could produce in the future, Fonfara, a Hartford Democrat, said.

“They spend how much time on, ‘Oh, there could be vertical lift airplanes at some point down the road,’ ” Fonfara said. “They talk about that, but don’t talk about the potential of this property and what it could mean five, 10 years from now. You’ve got at least five towns around Hartford and south of Hartford that are talking about developing on the river. They see potential there.”

Fonfara said he intends to hold hearings on the study in the next legislative session and question the authors of the study closely.

Those who have pushed to keep Brainard open and see its potential for growth also expressed displeasure with the study’s recommendation — for different reasons.

Michael Teiger, president of the Hartford Brainard Airport Association, said the closing the runway hobbles the airport and opportunities for future growth.

“I think death by a thousand cuts fits this perfectly,” Teiger, a recreational pilot with a plane at Brainard, said. “You take away the property and you make it so it’s unable to grow and bring business in. It’s just going to be a place where guys like me fly in and out. And it can’t survive.”

The report said the recommended option would dovetail with the industrial nature of the area surrounding Brainard Airport, which includes a wastewater treatment plant. The alternative also could be achieved swiftly, potentially in one phase, the report said.

The proposed structures under the recommended option include a 100,000-square-foot building split equally between flex industrial and advanced manufacturing spaces; another 100,000-square-foot structure dedicated to industrial or manufacturing purposes, and a 20,000-square-foot retail area.

The three other options are:

Keeping the airport open with limited development with a runway extension, new air traffic control tower, hangars and 94,000 square feet of aviation-related space.

Closing the airport and pursuing the addition of 2.6 million square feet of industrial space, 140,000 square feet of office space and 100,000 square feet of “accessory retail.”

Closing Brainard for a massive, mixed-use redevelopment that could have 2,700 units of rental housing, 105,000-square feet of retail, 262,000 square feet of industrial space and 255,000 square feet of indoor and outdoor recreation venues.

According to BFJ, Total development costs range from $46 million for the recommended option to $1.4 billion for the mixed-use alternative. These numbers do not include the use of public subsidies in the calculations. Typically in the Hartford region, projects such as these receive subsidies of at least 20% of the total project cost in order to be financed due to market conditions and cost of construction, BFJ said.

In months of public meetings, the issue of contamination was prominent in discussions. In addition to any soil contamination from the century-old airport, there was the concern about coal tar, a by-product of coal gasification plants that once provided light and heat to cities like Hartford.

The report says the options calling for closing Brainard and redeveloping it would require $45 million for razing buildings and cleaning up contamination.

Last year, state lawmakers approved the funding for the study. But Brainard’s future has been debated for decades, stretching back to the 1950s when a large portion of the airport was taken to develop the city’s South Meadows area.

The latest push to close and redevelop — led by Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin and Fonfara with the support the city council — is built on the argument that redevelopment would foster economic development that would add to Hartford’s tax base, sorely needed by the city.

“I view the recommendation to close the east-west runway as incremental progress,” Bronin, who is not running for a third term, said Tuesday. “Although I continue to believe the entire site covering hundreds of acres of riverfront land at the intersection of two major highways is vastly underutilized today.”

The recent push to redevelop spawned the formation of the airport association, whose members include local pilots, Brainard tenants and others. They have pushed back against the airport being cast as a “playground for rich folks” with single- and twin-engine planes. The association also argues that Brainard is crucial for its pilot training schools and should be invested in as an asset to promote economic development in the region.

The association also believes the findings will be no different than a legislative study conducted in 2016 that recommended Brainard stay open. That study never came to a vote, dismissed by those who support redevelopment, including Fonfara.

State legislators are expected to use the report in the 2024 session of the General Assembly to decide whether the state-owned airport should remain open or be closed. The Federal Aviation Administration would then have to approve the closing of Brainard if that option were chosen.

Kenneth R. Gosselin can be reached at kgosselin@courant.com.