08/21/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. otto - Whatever I say is not binding: FAA has a p>licy that landfills are not OOHlp:itible with airp>rts. Gateway's size of facility will acCOJmlOdate piston aircraft and FAA guidelines are that a~ sanitary landfills within 5000' of an airp>rt would be deemed non-canp:itible land use. Because of AlP funds, the Federal goverrment would be p:irticip:iting $4,000,000 worth and they will not risk their investment l!i having another agency mitigating it. Airp>rts and landfills are incomp:itible land uses but I would be doing a disservice to say that when an airport is there, the landfill is not going to be there. Ernie Larsen - 7220 153rd Lane l\M - Can Ramsey afford $535,000 or $1,310,000 for an airp>rt that would benefit 50-75 people - the majority of which mew not live or work in Ramsey? IF we have the money, would we be wiser to spend it extending the sewer to that area to attract bJ.siness and industry? Can the City afford to sustain and operate an airp>rt if it becomes a reality? What econanic benefit will this be to the City and resident taxpayers? Who would do the Enviromental Impact Statement? Can we Obligate State funds for this developnent or are we making an assllnption based on past practice? If we really want an airp:>rt, is this the proper location? Compliment the Conmission on conducting this public forlJll. Olaiman Ippel - Whether Ramsey can afford this facility is sanething to be looked at. Up until this study we did not kn<M the cost of developnent and maintenance. Businesses and pilots in the region were surveyed to detemine potential need and use of this facility. It will take more than people fran Ramsey utilizing the airp>rt to make it financially feasible and self- supporting. '!here are Ramsey residents and businesses currently using the . facility and there have been businesses expressing a desire to come into Ramsey if they can kn<M that the facility will be upgraded and be there. '!his airp>rt master plan presented tonight, if adopted, will initiate additional ~ases of the study which address these concerns. Cannot answer if it would be wiser to bring in sewer and water rather than an airport to attract business. '!his 6,.- :,/'&S' COIImission surv~~similar airport facilities in the region and saw what those facilities attracted to their respective oarmunities. '!his Ccmnission surveyed cannunities hosting airport facilities and the general resp>nse was that their airports did bring in developnent and employment. Attracting developnent is very competitive in this region and it is hoped that an airport would set Ramsey ap:irt fran the other cannuni.ti~s_. _ \.~ere is an increasing trend for ~ ,-e,s anall businesses to use oorporate ai~ince deregulation. Airport 0.../ facilities do have revenue generators like hangars: hangars are developed as needed, p:ly for themselves and produce revenue. Another way to produce revenue is lease the land to hangar developers and those developers are taxed accordingly for the improvement. . . Mr. otto - '!he State subsidizes airp>rt operating expenses: a facility the size of Gateway would be eligible for $5 ,000jyear . Olaiman Ippel - With respect to eoonanic benefit, it is hopeful that the airp>rt will attract industry, employment and additional tax base for the cannunity. COIImercial establisbnents are taxed 4 times as much as a residential unit and the additional tax base brought into thecannuni ty should hold hanec.wner taxes Cbwn. Using tax increment to finance the airp>rt would be a way of p:iying for the airp>rt through revenues gained fran developnent in August 21, 1985 Page 6 of 14