08/21/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

runway i~ ad~tion to a primary runway. ~he Airport Con~ission was advised to purse Al~rnate B. The study has looked at some of the envirormental consequences and impacts that would asSOciated with Alternate B: perceived safety and noise problems; non- compatible land use (it has been determined by FAA that landfills are not compatible with airports if they are located within 5000' of an airport); increased 'air traffic; socio-economics (airport development costs in relation to airport size, runway length and nt~ber of runways). All of these details have to be~ addressed in greater detail in an Environmental Assessment which is a follow-on phase of this airport study. Mr. Otto stated that Stage I of airport development would involve approximately 230 aores of land aoquisition including 14 hcmes and 2 commercial establishments; scheduling the relocation of Cty. Rd. #116; paving runway and a portion ~f the taxiway syst~; portion of building area developed. Stage II develot~mnt would include developing the building area including aircraft hangars; aircraft and auto parking area; arrival departure buildings; security fencing; approach and navigation aids. Mr. Otto s~ated the City's benefits frcm this airport develounent as follows: 1. In~edJLate benefits from the construction; 2. Continuing benefits by attractie~ of .itinerant users; 3. Intangible benefits. An airport, especially in the mi _a~!e of 1400 acres of industrial property, makes a ocm~uni~ look more attracive ~o a potential business ooming into the oon~unity. That incoming business shifts the tax base frcm residential to commercial/industrial tax base. ~z~~ewa recently did a study that states for every dollar spent on capital impr~sments, $2.80 is realized in economic benefits. Studies also say that every itinerant passenger leaves $70 in the community; based on the projectio~ for Gateway in 1990 and using a conservative figure of $35/passen~r~,' Ramsey is looking at a benefit of $115,000 in itinerant activity; using the multiplier affect on this figure, Ramsey would see an indirect benefit of $460,000 for that one year period. Mr. Otto ~s~ated that there is funding available for airport develofment for land acqu~sition and public use facilities, including runway and taxiway develofmm~Rt. ~he Airport Improvsment Fund is user generated from gas and jet fuel sales, at.rline ticket taxes, etc. and those funds in turn are appropriated for public .us~ portions of airport development. Development costs in Stage I would be $4,0~,000; $3,600,000 would be funded through AIP funds; City's share would be $400,000. Stage II costs would be $700,000+; $530,000 would be eligible f~r ~2[P funds; $90,000 eligible for State funds; City's share would be $100,000. Stage III, which includes development necessary to meet grcwth demands, ~o~sts would be $260,000; $200,000 is eligible for kiP funds; $21,000 eligible for State funds; City's share would be $33,000. Total development costs over that 20 year period would be $5,000,000 with the City's share being $500,000+. Mr. Otto stated that airport associated operating expenses are a concern. In order to ~t a revenue base, you need a viable fixed base operation to generate those rever~es and offset the expenses. Having hangars available accomplishes that goal. ' Including hangar develot~ent significantly increases the State and City's share of airport develounent costs; Federal participation does not August 21, 1985 Page3 of 14