Laserfiche WebLink
runway in addition to a primary runway. The Airport Commission was advised to <br />purl* Alternate B. <br />The study has looked at some of the environmental consequences and impacts that <br />would associated with Alternate B: perceived safety and noise problems; non - <br />compatible land use (it has been determined by FAA that landfills are not <br />compatible with airports if they are located within 5000' of an airport); <br />increased air traffic; socio-economics (airport devel.opnent costs in relation <br />to airport size, runway length and number of ate). A11 of these details <br />have to be addressed in greater detail in an Environmental Assessment which is <br />a follow-on phase of this airport study. <br />Mr. Otto stated that Stage I of airport development would involve approximately <br />230 acres of land acquisition including 14 homes and 2 commercial <br />establishments; scheduling the relocation of Cty. Rd. #116; paving runway and a <br />portion of the taxiway system; portion of building area developed. Stage II <br />development would include developing the building area including aircraft <br />hangars; aircraft and auto parking area; arrival departure buildings; security <br />fencing; approach and navigation aids. <br />Mr. Otto stated the City's benefits from this airport development as follows: <br />1. Immediate benefits fran the construction; 2. Continuing benefits by <br />attraction of itinerant users; 3. Intangible benefits. An airport, especially <br />in th'iddle of 1400 acres of industrial property, makes a community look more <br />attrave to a potential business caning into the cannunity. That incoming <br />busi ss is ,tax b3 fran residential to commercial/industrial tax <br />base tecently%did a study that states for every dollar spent on <br />capital improvements, $2.80 is realized in eoonanic benefits. Studies also say <br />that every itinerant passenger leaves $70 in the community; based on the <br />projections for Gateway in 1990 and using a conservative figure of <br />$35/passenger, Ramsey is looking at a benefit of $115,000 in itinerant <br />activity; using the multiplier affect on this figure, Ramsey would see an <br />indirect benefit of $460,000 for that one year period. - tqs o . <br />Mr. Otto stated that there is funding available for airport development for <br />land acquisition and pilbiic use facilities, including runway and taxiway <br />development. The Airport improvement Fund is user generated fran gas and jet <br />fuel sales, airline ticket taxes, etc. and those funds in turn are appropriated <br />for public use portions of airport development. Development costs in Stage I <br />would be $4,000,000; $3,600,000 would be funded through AIP funds; City's share <br />would to $400,000. Stage II costs would be $700,000+; $530,000 would be <br />eligible for AIP funds; $90,000 eligible for State funds; City's share would be <br />$100,000. Stage III, which includes development necessary to meet growth <br />demands, costs would be $260,000; $200,000 is eligible for AIP funds; $21,000 <br />eligible for State funds; City's share would be $33,000. Total development <br />costs over that 20 year period would be $5,000,000 with the City's share being <br />$500,000+. <br />Mr. Otto stated that airport associated operating expenses are a concern. In <br />order to get a revenue base, you need a viable fixed base opera on o enerate <br />those revenues and offset the expenses. Having hangars available ao an ishes <br />that goal. Including hangar development significantly increases the State and <br />City's share of airport development oasts; Federal participation does not <br />August 21, 1985 <br />Page 3 of 14 <br />