05/15/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

relocated,. Gateway develo~nent would involve approximately 230 acres in fee simple acquisition; acquisition would be eligible for 90% Federal funding and 10% local ~funding. Mr. Otto proceeded to discuss developaent costs as follows: Stage I - Necessary acquisition for development of airport building area, runwaY, runway associated clear zones, land necessary for the relocation of G~.unty Road #116. Stage I costs are estimated at $4,000,000; all of items in. Stage I are eligible for 90% Federal funding and the local responsibility would be 10%. Mr. Otto noted that these Federal airport funds are derived from aviation user generated revenues; they do not come out ofthe general taxpayer' s pocket. Stage II - Development of public use aircraft parking area, arrival/ departure building, auto parking, access road to hangars, tie-downs and ligh~ing~ Estimated cost of Stage II is $720,000. All of the public use ite~ are eligible for 90% Federal participation; revenue producing items like fuel tanks and auto parking are not eligible for Federal funding, but ~he State participates on a 2/3 / 1/3 basis -- local share in Stage II would be approximately $100,000 without hangars. Stage III - Includes expanding to meet forecast growth needs from 1995- 2005~~ a'~itional hangars and expansion of aprons, auto parking and perimeter road. Estimated cost is $250,000. Most of these items are eligible, for AIP funds and the local share would be approximately $30,000 without ~hangar development. With hangar development the local share would be[ considerably higher because they are revenue generating and not eligible, for Federal funding. The State has an interest-free revolving fund ~to ~assist in the develounent of hangars; this revolving loan fund can also be used for the development of maintenance hangars. Mr. Otto ~ta~ed that there are three areas of economic benefit associated with airport ~elo~ment: 1. Direct benefits from construction program. 2. Gontinuing benefits by virtue of users. 3. Large number of indirect benefits that are difficult to measure. Mr. Otto stated that a study performed by Georgetown University states that every $1.00 Put into a construction project generates $2.80 in economic activity. Mr, Otto pointed out that Stage I costs, minus land acquisition, are $1,2501~000; if $2.80 is generated on every dollar, the economic activity generated woUld be $3,500,000. The community's share in the cost of Stage I, including iand acquisition is $500,000; Ramsey would only have to realize $.40 to $.50 ~nOmic activity generation on every dollar for the co, unity to have a payba~k On it's investment. Mr. otto p~ooeeded to discuss economic benefits from transient incoming airport traffic and stated that several studies indicate that the average itinerant sPe~ds $50 to $70 per day in the area for hotels, food, auto rental, May 15, 1985 Page 4 of 11