Laserfiche WebLink
ove~ r~ilroad 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 /> <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 />456 would have to be cut off, closed and traffic rerouted. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto~stated that the State feels strongly that with the limited <br />amount of dollars aVailable, we should pursue the best orientatiQn_ <br />we can achieve with the primary runway~ in Gateway's case, the only <br />alternative~Worth developing is Alternati-ve B. <br /> <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 Dusinesses and possibly up to 14 homes. DeVelopment <br />would be in two stages: <br /> <br />Stage I ~ 1985~1989 ~ Includes land acquisition.; site prepar~tion~ <br />relocati°n Of cry. Rd~,~#ll6; development of runway and taXiway; <br />obstruction lighting~ security, fencing;-runway lighting~ lighted wind <br />cone. Estimated costs for Stage % is 3.9 million of which 3.1 <br />million Would be eligible for Federal funds under the Airport <br />ImproYementlProgr~n~ $300~000.would be eligible for State funds and <br />the !Ocli share 'would be $500,000. <br /> <br />Stage I%.- 1990-1994 - Includes arrival/departure building; apron; <br />access r~ad; well, septic system & utilities; security lighting; <br />electrical building/controls; additional T-hangars. With the <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 $~18,000~ <br /> <br />Mr. Otto. stated that the total project estimated cost is 5.1 million <br />of which. 3.4 million is eligible for ~ederal funds, ~ million is <br />eligiblelfo~ 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 /> <br />Mr. Otto stated that studies done by the General Aviaition <br />Association say that fo~ every itinerant passenger, a community <br />can coun~ on that passenger spending $70 within the. community <br />that particular day (hotel, car rental, -reStaurants, fuel). Current <br /> <br />AP/August 22, 1984 <br />Public Meeting <br /> Page3of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />