Airport Improvements - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

.~.+ ~..~ Socio-economic impacts will likely be determining factor for EIS vs. FONSI. Impacts will relate to acquisition, relocation possibilities, disruption of neighborhood, impacts in Zone B, and impacts on users. Other issues discussed were impacts on wetlands due to 116 location. Possible 116 relocation slightly to south of planned relocation. Impacts on users during construction. Another subject briefly discussed was the possibility of Zoning. Zoning for MPS ali nment would serve as better protection for existing primary runwayK ~ian would alternative. Funding situation was also briefly discussed. FAA's opinion is that due to funding availability and project costs, the likely way to proceed is separate grants for acquisition and construction. Bob also pointed out that AIP expires in FY '87 and depends on type of program/funds in new airport program. However, due to number of based aircraft and type of project, Gateway should rank well on priority system. Dick Larson indicated that due to demand on Mn/DoT funds, they could not commit at this time to cost sharing for environmental, preapp. work. Dave indicated that political reality was that City may not proceed with work if funding was 100 local. Obviously, dollar amount is a consideration. He and Dick will meet after cost estimate is developed to see if any cost sharing-might be worked out. FAA pointed out that City must address reasonableness of cost requirements, secure FAA approvals prior to work if the work is to be eligible for reimbursement. Commitments made: • MO to revi,~w landfill letter to Bob Hutchinson re:impact on imaginary surfaces. • MO to develop scope of work - get to Dave. City to develop cost reasonableness. MO to get criteria to Dave. Develop costs on work, Dave H. to meet with Mn/DOT re funding. It is thought that these notes substantially reflect the discussion. P1 direct any comments, additions or corrections to me. e nd Otto /ckl cc: All participants