Laserfiche WebLink
1' <br />over railroad tracks and ends up impacting north residential <br />' area more than we would with Alternative A. This alternative <br />only requires 5 -6' of fill. <br />1 <br />Alternative C involves shifting the primary orientation of <br />the runway to an east /west direction in order to get traffic <br />away from residential areas. In order to achieve adequate <br />wind coverage, we would still need a north /south crosswind <br />runway. Major drawback to this alternative is that Cty. Rd. <br />#56 would have to be cut off, closed and traffic rerouted. <br />Mr. Otto stated that the State feels strongly that with the limited <br />amount of dollars available, we should pursue the best orientation__ <br />we can achieve with the primary runway•, in Gateway's case, the only <br />alternative worth developing is Alternative B. <br />Mr. Otto stated that with Alternative B there are about 213 acres <br />' involved which would include easement on one small parcel and <br />impact two businesses and possibly up to 14 homes. Development <br />would be in two stages: <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />1 <br />1 <br />!I <br />I I <br />General Aviaition <br />passenger, a community <br />within the community <br />restaurants, fuel). Current <br />Stage I - 1985 -1989 - Includes land acquisition; site preparation; <br />relocation of Cty. Rd,. #116; development of runway and taxiway; <br />obstruction lighting; security fencing;- runway lighting; lighted wind <br />cone. Estimated costs for Stage I is __3� million of which 3.1 <br />million would be eligible for Federal " K a under the Airport <br />Improvement Program, $300 000 would be eligible for State funds and <br />the local, share would be 500,000. <br />Stage II - 1990 -1994 - Includes arrival /departure building; apron; <br />access road; well, septic system & utilities; security lighting; <br />electrical building /controls; additional T- hangars. With <br />exception of hangars, everything is open to public use and is <br />therefore eligible for State and /or Federal funding. Hangars are <br />developed when and as needed.; revenue generated from hangar rental <br />pays back the cost of developing hangars. State does have a <br />revolving hangar fund for communities that is interest free and is <br />provided for up to 10 years and up to 80% of construction::'costs. <br />Because some development will occur, with or without additional <br />hangars, Stage II costs are brlken down in two ways: 1) Without <br />hangars, the cost would be $385,000 of which $291,000 is eligible <br />for Federal funds, $63,000 is eligible for State funds and the <br />local share would be $64,000. 2) With hangars, the cost would <br />be 1.2 million with Federal participation remaining at $291,000, <br />State participation increasing to $202,000 and local share increasing <br />to $718,000. <br />Mr. Otto stated that the total project estimated cost is 5.1 million <br />of which 3.4 million is eligible for Federal funds, k million is <br />eligible for State funds and the local share would be 1.2 million. <br />Mr. Otto pointed out that half of the local share would be for <br />hangar development and is paid back by hangar rental fees charged. <br />Mr. Otto stated that studies done by the <br />Association say that for every itinerant <br />can count on that passenger spending $70 <br />that particular day (hotel, car rental, <br />AP /August 22, 1984 <br />Public Meeting <br />Page 3 of 10' <br />