Minutes - Council - 08/14/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

response he received from the communities he contacted was that they perceived their airports as a valuable asset to the community and pursuit of economic development. On the negative side, the plowing, sanding and mowing at airports is an additional burden to the Public Works Departments and certain residents within the communities believe that airports benefit only a few. Mr. Otto stated that the questions before City Council at this point are; should the City proceed with airport improvements and if so, how will those improvements be financed. Mr. Otto noted that if the City makes a decision to enter into agency agreements to fund land acquisition, the Federal agreement has a 20 year timeframe attached to it and possibly the same timeframe would be attached to the State agreement. Mr. Otto noted that the Federal agency has indicated that they will not participate in funding for Gateway North Industrial Airport until the landfill operations cease. One of the advantages to entering into a state/local agreement is that the state will aggressively seek reimbursement from the Federal agency because they would then be able to turn that around to assist other airports. Councilmember Cich inquired about projected cost to staff Gateway North Industrial Airport. Mr. Otto replied that most cities appoint a fixed base operator who does not receive a salary from the City. The fixed base operator is in the business of making a profit from the airport and a percentage of that would be paid back to the City. If the fixed base operator is also serving as airport manager, he is functioning as an agent of the City with specified duties and tasks and usually receives a small amount of compensation in a variety of forms. The forms in which that compensation can be provided for ranges from rent credit to electrical service to service from the Public Works Department or even a very small monetary contribution. Councilmember Cich sated that he wants to table the Gateway North Airport issue and entertain some options for bringing the issue to the voters on the November referendum. Mr. Hartley replied that City Attorney Goodrich has researched and the only options available to Council for placing the Gateway North Industrial Airport issue on the November referendum is to put the question before the public either as an issuance of bond for the improvements or as an advisory election question. The notion that the City Council can have an ordinance on the referendum for the public to vote on as though it were an initiative action cannot be done; that can only be done by the public with a sufficient number of signatures on a petition. The City Council can ask the voters for their advice on a referendum ballot or they can place a request to issue bonds to pay for the improvements at Gateway on the ballot. If the issuance of bonds is placed on the ballot, it would only mean that the bonds were approved or denied and if an advisory question were placed on the ballot, it would simply reflect what the public advised but the City Council is still responsible for making the decision. Councilmember Pearson stated that he believes the airport is a valuable tool to opposing Site "P" and based on that, he is in favor of proceeding with the improvements at Gateway North Industrial Airport. Councilmember Pearson added that his one major concern remaining with respect to the airport is the issue of acquisition and its impact on those residents that will be forced to relocate. However, if the airport was no longer an issue and Site "P" was selected, the impact of that decision would affect the entire community. Mr. Otto stated that all the way through the Master Plan process, a number of public meetings were held and none of the homeowners proposed to be acquired stated any objections to the acquisition plan but rather stated their support for the project and desire for it to go forward as long as there would be a fair acquisition process. CITY COUNCIL/AUGUST 14, 1990 Page 13 of 20