The URL can be used to link to this page

Airport Enviromental AssessmentI 1 • • ma 0 #T- 103 �Ml �Ml B- LAIR, NEBRA SKA GENERAL AVIATION AIRPO Uuplicate A111011vlt8 of this rutincation nave seen rffeo in the office of: County Court ❑ Cleric of Dist. Court ❑ County Clerk ❑ Sec. State ❑ AFFIDAV F PRINT R P E o f eUnL If CARING STATE OF CONCBRNINC PROPOSED Alk• NEBRASKA PURT DEVELOPMENT OF A" CENEkAL A'VIATIOFI - AIRPORT. IL AT. IILAIR,n;NEDRASKA • On Deyember : 10, 1992 v 7:00 ashintton, County, pm:� there Will Cpr1v of ark n i public hearing on �e pnnxmtW flevel opment of is go"atai ovistiat•al" + Kenne H . R hoades __ m® low 01air, Nebrasks�en th the first duly sworn, deposes and says that he Is the publisher of THE oaislint Ratio ItieW,,T%a P'LL(Yr•TRMUNF, a legal weekly newspaper printed and published at ,doW.which mij ewtelels� o/'lhe fpljp.v(kpL a items: , . • , .., . • Blair, In Washington County. Nebr. and of (weral circulation in said Co mty i • 1"•co simpre'aa tilsition of Cho' -" and State; that sold newspaper has r bona fide circulation of more than t isting Eagle Field airport facilities. i 300 ceples weekly. In said County; and, has been published In said County consining of aptuoxlrnately.71 acre. , end existing hangers and other.kn. for more than 52 successive weeps prior to, the first publication of the at- provemcnts. Dated "In 'pan; of- the Cached no , that fife attached ld n ot northwest quartep!o(Seetion 10 and I for Th p consecutive webs, being site pan of the sorthw6(t quaripr of Sgcti m 19. Township 17' North. Range . 12 Bast. Washington County, 1Vebrpska;� t ^ No vembe r l� e 1® 92 -foe simple acquisition of a w". ' imately 110 acre,-In the southeast quaver of SeWoo, 24..,Townehip.17 '1 — Nn 1 7 . . - 9-2 1 North. Range 11 Bait. Waihington County,.Nebruks.•inciuding the din. November 24 s 92 ?' placement of one saideace. I • I'ct•aimpic togaidtiori of ®pprox. ! 10 i. imately 20 acres in the Northwest quar•' ter of Section 30. Township 17 North,, I 10 Range 17 Izrst. Washt819104 County, Nebraeks. ' • Fee simple a0g411ition of approx. . knotely, three acres In the northeast quince of Section 2S. " Towahhip 17, North. Rantc I 1 Bast;.. Weihington St1 bed in my presence and swt/rn b bef County. N ' • ' � ' Construction 24 th Novembe . l0 92 • on of gt�erai aHaQ� ' thL d f airport facilities on the ab'"t do.. scribed property Including a lighted CENfiAL IIOIART -Stilt of Iltbtltiu 4.100 -foot long by 75-foot wide sum. I � PEGGY L HIPNAR otary It f way with a full length parallel Mai -. 1 °= }'.' MY Comm. Esp, Nov. 20,1991 way, 55 feet in width; general aviation ptltlleta FCCS F or I'ublis g 1 ®tlCe ...........:...... tenginal arch with aircraft porting . aWon: hangars, tixgd .barn .operolor :' pgWaratlon of Affidavit and Billing....... 0 ............... 1; L1l�li��.t�;�ftinuu�,�®ocas Nelwukr Sutc Highway IS3 and ss q ;. Notary F ees ................ ............................... _ cation of portions , y uf; • two,. county i grovel roads.. • ' !f n, r I'laer of Meenm 1 A.- i.:, ..; A Copy . ...................................................... i. wU be held in the The healing � Auditorium of the Total ................ Z T aj _ (l9 Ulan high School,' Purpmst: of th_t:!eating q;, ' consider, economic. so}{N•'and env '•'; . roWcntal effccis of ,4 •proposed land t C;: acquisition and airport dava'IoWcnt'ii.:` and their eottistency �wiih''Une• \\ rod objectives or such * - .1" s ) planning • ;it has -been earriul aui`.ftX thL rroa. CoNducl or meelluR;= Reprereri- �,� ; I tadvea 01 City will: at'the outttl present a summary of.thSir'f,•ioas' eat -)�;:' coming Cho airport 811 the. OLTpos<d project's social, eeonosnle rod .. V.' .. q onvi. 1. • jmpscu, : and -their eO,rls•. , .1"cY with local planning.' Other per -t fwd file g to do so.+Nill be pr• oppwwnity'to proserq writ..•:;:: ten or oral views (whelher in favor of, in opposition, w by ways of 1*ox 0 revision to the •project)." All can- Z'm u' oral� I yp or written,• retxived pries , . q ,lo Cpl Clullon' 01 the public.,hearing% ta'wi11 be made a pan of the.reoosd of that' public hearing. b , • Avallablilty •• of ; 16r ',Draft Eavlranmenfel 'Asressaneat :_.The • '*City hill proposed a d", � ment. die• p cussing the proposed Impmvcments - and tht onviro nmental implciq thw the ' Proposed, eglion is expecle rove. f Any pCqott_d document may do so Burin rlgrmpJ op- crating houn'at the Dlaif!public U. brary, 17th and Uncoln Street.' rod at s : the' Blair• City Ilall. 211 :Aouth ,161 r .: .i Street Illsir Nebraska, h, • Tins notice is published: ponuant •to • ' – •the'requlrements of the.Dclus ant of 'Transportation Federol. Avirtion'Ad• : ministration. , • ,' • Rod�Stonn I .. 'City Administrator" " ®lair. Nebraska.,,' uDl shed In the pilot Till•' •buae .Tutstray. NovemDers.ltl, • 17 qed 21. 1992. A4ort Environmental Assessment / VJ/ Public Hearing I R? OR I MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD fior Blair, Nebraska Meeting 1 Date: Dec. 10, 1992 Time: 7:00 pm. Place: Blair High School Auditorium ..... .... ................ Lila\ .................. ....................... ......................................................... ... ...... �s ........................................................................... ........................ ........... 4PA% ... H r.$0140,10VC, C, ............. rx ................... ............................ 4,4 ............... . L? ................. ................................................................................................... z ....... ................................. ... ...... .. ... .... ........ 7 ...... �OK ...................................................................... 7. --- ------- ... ... . .... .. .. .. .... . ..... 80 � K2tY / 4 i� u ....... 6 ��!, .... �.}� ..... . Z7-, 6- ...... j� ��CJ,4 0 &�A� ........................................... . ........................................... ........................................................... f. 00? ...................... ..... . ..... .... ................. .. ............................................................ .......... .... ....... . ................. : -J ........ .. ........... )��; 1. ®:. .. eel - ., - I . ................ V. ...... 3 .......................... . . .... 11 ........... .... ........ . ..................... ............................... ...................... ............... .................... . . . .. ..... . . . .. ... ...................... ........... ............... ......... Z7 ,4 ....... Z ................................................ .......... w ...� °...... ................................ ............ ....... J . ... ... ? I /Z- 14. co ..C� x .......... ........................ ....... V . 14.0 ...... ................ ......................................... ....... ...... ..................................... .......... ....... ...... ............. ... .... . .......... .............. . 3 .. .... ................ 1 5. U rqA � 1.6... t ............. ................ .......... ...... as . ......... R w .......... .......... .............. . . ................................................ ................... ...... .......... ... ................ ........y ::........ .................. =;, G 7 .......... ...................................................... 1 .7 ................................................................................. I ......................................... I ..................................................................... I ................................................................... 1 .8 ................................................................................ ............................................................................................................... ................................................................... 19. ........................................................................................ ................................................ 20. ....................................................... I ............................. **** I I I Airport Environmental Assessment Public Hearing MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD for Blair, Nebraska Meeting Date: Dec. 10, 1992 Time: 7:00 pm Place: Blair High School Auditorium ................ ... ............................................ ...... x_33 ..:- ..�:��.a 1.: ��: �. �.... � . . �.. �.. ��: � � ........... I ......... .... ............. [ ...... .......... .... ........ .............. ...5�.. ��. �� , 1� - 6� :.............. . r . . ........ .......... .. . . . .. .... ..... . ..... . . ........................... 8 - - - --------- JQ: ..... ....... q 11. ,�� ...................................................... ......... ............... 1 2. ............... ............ .. ek ....... .1.3 .. ........ .... ... ..... . ... .... . ...... . ........... ... ....... .......................................................... MET .............. ........ . ...................................... ............................................................................................................. .. ...................................... .................. W .............................................. *. ................ .................. ........................................................... --I— . ........................ ............. I ......... IL.y O ...................... ........... ........................... . ............. .......................... ........................... .................................... [ ...... x.. ........................................... .............. ..................... 17 ... ...... ........................... �,) ,:z �? a ...................... ........................ ......................... o ..... . ....... :d Z�X.o .... A?6�,X ... 1�17 .......... Z(;C . ....... ... ................ .................. ................. .......... RR.a ......... &-)/ ...... &.3 .... o ..... I�L i ............. ........................ ............. ............................................. 42 6- ............................................... ................................................................. j . ..... . .......... . ........... ... .... ............ 3 ............................................. ...................... ........... . 2 ................................................... .. . . '.:1..... ...................................... .. ......................... . .. . CveZ-vi ............... ................................................. .................................................................... ....... .. ...... ................ ....... ............... . 117.6 ............................................................................. I ............................................................................................................... I . 1 .8 ................................................................................. ............................................................................................................... ......................... I ......................................... 19. ........................................................................................ I ......................................... K11 Airport Environmental Assessment Public Hearing MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD f or Blair N Meeting 1. .......................................................... .................... 2. .................................... ............................... . ..... . ................... .. . ...6. All ....:.- dam: 1 .......�.......� ....... 1.0 : ... �,;�..... L . 1 . 2... ........ ....................... ............... P isT C ep ...... 1.4.( . ............... ....... ............... ......... ..... .. ..... . ....... .. ...... .............. ...... ............ W "I Date: Dec. 10, 1992 Time: 7:00 pm Place: Blair High School Auditorium ......... . ..... V� .............. . ........ ............................................................ 4 L. ........ 4� .. ....................... I ......... ............... V ' � ". z ? ..................... . ............................ I .......... .. U . .... Z3 .. ............. . .. ... .. ...... )t� �--- . ......... ) -7 AIr 2,1, 4v-c- � � �"s . ........ M ....... Z3..RL ..... .. 4Z�� .... ................. ............................................ _ ... u sz �!. _ C c 3 ...9/ r .. 6 � . Xt�_. �� 1_ ..... ......................... C E..S'� ..... ....... ....... ...... Airport Environmental Assessment Public Hearing MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD 9 for Blair, Nebraska Meeting Date: Dec. 10, 1992 Time: 7:00 pm Place: Blair High School Auditorium 2C . . . ...................... . ................... ................ . ........................ I ........ &� 3 EOX 9 3 -A ................... 2. ....................................................................... ........... . .. . ........ ... ... ............. .. ............ ......... .... ......... ..................... 4 .. .... ......... . a- - . .. ........... .. U V7 J- � . .. . ..................... ...... ................. Z4. ... I-1.-- A01�111 0 8 5. & ... .... .................................... I ........... ...................... K ............. ... ................... ..... . ....... ......... .............. . ..... ... ...... . ................ ...... ......................................... .................. ..... ................ ........... ..... .. ... ......... ....................... 40 �1.�6 sue./ ,S 3. --2- c),k 2- ............................................................... ............................................................... S - a ................................... ............. .................... 71a.1 .......... ............................... .................... , 5 - , -- 7 , /— 55�Cl ................................................. / or ............................................... .. ............ 4a� --� I CIO ............................................................. . . ....... ... ... C.0 .. L -L zk_ ... 3 .. 3.� ............................................... .............................................................................................................. Z- Z- g -5-,33 -4..?4g ................... /01 .................. ................ .... ........................................................................ ..................... . ..... .... ........ .......... S .. . ...... ro ..................... 3 ............. ....... ........ ......... ...................................... ....... :N4� ...... I ........ NJ A4ort Environmental Assessment Public Hearing MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD Ar for Blair, Nebraska Meeting Date: Dec. 10, 1992 Time: 7:00 pm. Place: Blair High School Auditorium ............. --- .......... .......................... .......... 13 .. . . ... . ........... . . . ................... • .......... . .......................... .. . ... ..... ... .... ............. .1.6 ....... .. ... 6- :. /...,.. 17 / /�ti . . . ........................... . 18. .. ...................... . ...... .. .. .. . ....... .............. 19 .. .. t C1 ......................................................................................................... It I ( S 3 3 -,P -5111 .................................................................. .................................... I .................... 1 010 Ik! e� oa .... s.�3 !::j� �2 ............... ................. .. � 1.3 W ......... ................................................. ................ .Z4� . . ..... .............. ................ ............................................... L � ..................... ........ .................................................... ..... ot ....... ... ... ... . .............. 6-b ..... . ....... I t / ............................................................... ........... .......a.... ........................................................... .................. ..... .... . .......................... . .... �:.�.. ...... .............. ...... .... ........... ..... ..................................................... .............................. ........ ... ................................. ..................... ....................... .......... Aq"o'r't Environmental Assessment Public Hearing MEETTNG ATTENDANCE RECORD U for Blair, Nebraska Meeting Date: Dec. 10, 1992 Time: 7:00 pm Place: Blair High School Auditorium .. 5.10 ............... . ........................ ....... am. ......... I ......... q 2 ...... .. .. ..... ................. . .... .. ....................... 7 &Az ........................................... . . ... ....... W.,/ A ....... ...... .................... 3 ... rs �,ok ov .................................................................... . .......... I ........................................................................ P- 4- 4—L G r- ...................................... 6 1 .............................................................. FI k I .... ...... . ... ........... ....... ... ... ..... I .......... IJ :- .................. 1 2. .................. $ .......................... .......................................... 3. A ............ .... ... ... ..................................... 14 . . . . ............. ............ ............... 15 ........................... ........ .. ... .. ...... ......... .. ...... .. ..................... .... 171 uNT ......... ... ............................... .. ..... ..................... ... r 1 . . ................... ........ .. ... 4 -� ................................................................... ........................ . ...................................... .... ............. .......... I ......... .. . ......... ................................................ ................................................................... ...... ZIJ�x ........................... ...... ................. .................................................................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................... .... 2 ........................................ ) .......... ... .... .... ------- ( C� ............................................ ............ 6y- .................................. ............ ................................................................... 7 &Az ........................................... ..... .......................................... .................. K P Z ................. ......... ............. �� (C .............................. .... .. .... ......... ....... Z../ ........ .................................. ... ...................... ... .... . ..... ... ......... . ................................ ..................................... ........ c M u Cc �'�....��' V ) ......................................... ..... ............. ............ ) ....... ..4 4 Z 6 ................ .. ...... t ....... ...................................................... ................................................................... ;r7 fm)r ............. - ....... 1---w . .. .... ..... I ....................................................... ................................................................... .. z-2,36 ................. ............................................... ...... 17 Hearing held on December 10, 1992, at the Blair High School regarding the site study by Coffman & Associates Julianne Dixon Plugge Certified Court Reporter Blair, Nebraska JIM RYAN: I'd like to welcome you all here on behalf of the City of Blair, and make a few introductions of the folks that are a part of this public hearing for the environmental assessment of the proposed new Blair airport. First off, I'm Jim Ryan, and a Blair City Councilman, and have the dubious honor of being elected to chairman of the Airport Selection Committee. On my immediate left is Steve Benson, an engineer from Coffman and Associates, and to his left Rod Storm, our City Administrator.. We have a few other folks in the audience from the City, if they would stand. Councilman Bernie Kros, Councilman Mick Mines, Councilman Jim Fay, and retiring Councilman Merton Kuhr, and our Mayor, Mr. Bud Jenny. This hearing is structured, as you probably noticed by the article in the Blair paper and will be following an outline that is prescribed by the FAA's procedures for doing this sort of thing. The City of Blair is conducting an airport feasibility study master plan to provide safe and adequate general aviation facilities to serve the community. An environmental assessment has been prepared with regard to the proposed airport site. Ninety -five percent of the cost of these studies has been funded through grants from the FAA and the Nebraska Department of Aeronautics. This hearing has been advertised in the Pilot Tribune on November 10th, November 17th and November 24th of 1992. The purpose of this meeting is to present a summary of the proposed project and its social, economic and environmental impacts and to provide the opportunity for public comment. No decisions will be made at this hearing. This hearing is being physically recorded by a court reporter. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement must fill out a speaker's request at the registration table and turn it in at the registration desk. When called upon, please step up to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and then proceed with your comments. In the interest of time, please limit your oral presentation to ten minutes. Written statements may be submitted tonight to either myself or anybody at the desk, and any additional comments that you want to write and turn in to City Hall, you can write and turn in by the 23rd of December. This hearing will be conducted as a non - adversary hearing. That is, there will be no cross - examination and all oral statements will be addressed to the hearing officers. Any comments requiring a response should be addressed in writing and included in the final environmental assessment. The City will mail out the responses to all these questions to all those registered to speak tonight. If any of the rest of you would like to turn your name and address in at the registration desk, we would be glad to forward those responses to you. Steve Benson will go ahead and make a short presentation, and then we'll go into the open forum. STEVE BENSON: Thank you, Jim. The City of Blair is 9 requesting federal environmental approval for the airport site as proposed by the Blair Airport Site Feasibility Study. This is necessary to obtain Federal Aviation Administration approval of the airport site as required to be eligible for federal funding. The proposed project consists of the development of a general - aviation airport at the existing Eagle Field location. The facility will be designed to accommodate general aviation aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds and will not have the capacity to handle larger jet aircraft. If developed as planned over the next 20 years, the airport will look something like this. This airport layout plan development will include approximately 234 acres of property acquisition, including the displacement of one residence, also, the construction of a 4,100 -foot long by 75- foot -wide runway, with a 35 -foot wide parallel taxiway; relocation of portions of two county gravel roads, construction of general aviation hangars, apron, fuel facilities, auto parking, and access from Nebraska State Highway 133. The primary need for the proposed action is to providz for the general aviation transportation needs of the City of Blair and Washington County now and in the future. A survey conducted as part of the feasibility study indicated an adequate facility could attract 65 aircraft today. This was projected to grow to 95 in 20 years. Takeoffs and landings would average 29,000 annually at the start, and potentially grow to 50,000 in Ell 20 years. The present facilities at Blair and Eagle Field do not have adequate runway length or safety clearances to meet the needs of business users of general aviation aircraft. As a result, a site selection study was conducted to compare the possibilities of developing one of the existing two airports as well as developing an entirely new site. A search for potential sites found limited possibilities in the Washington County area due to terrain and other siting constraints. Only four potential sites were found, including the existing Blair and Eagle Field sites. Site A comprises potential development of the existing Blair airport. It was found that this site would attract the least activity, would require the most residential relocation, and would impact a site eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Site B would be a new airport site. However, this site was found to have high cost and poor accessibility. Site C would also be a new site. While it had several advantages, its primary drawback would be the cost of relocating a microwave tower and airspace conflicts with the privately operated Eagle Field. Site D is the Eagle Field site. This site was selected as the most feasible because it would consolidate activity at one airport in the county; it has the highest basing potential; its development costs are as low or lower than the other potential sites. 5 The environmental assessment which has been on file in the City Hall and the City Library for the past 30 days addresses the potential impacts the airport could have on the environment. Noise is a problem often associated with airports. Noise can be physically uncomfortable as well as interfere with the normal activities of the community. Several methods of measuring the effects of aircraft noise have been developed. The day -night sound level methodology, or DNL, was used to analyze the noise anticipated from the future airport. This method has gained wide acceptance from the Federal Aviation Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Housing and Urban Development. These average noise levels are used to predict public reaction to noise. For instance, a 75 DNL indicates a potential for serious impact, while a 65 DNL level is recognized as the critical annoyance level. The 65 DNL at the new airport will remain within the proposed airport boundaries. In fact, even lower levels down to 55 DNL stay on the airport. While there are no significant noise impacts associated with the airport, it will be important to avoid the development of dense residential development within close proximity to the ends of the runway. However, this does not preclude continued large lot residential development from being approved under A -1 zoning in the future. The principal social impacts are associated with relocation or community disruption. The proposed airport would M require the displacement of one residence. Acquisition and relocation will be accomplished in accordance with the Real Property and Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and Part 25 of the Secretary of Transportation Regulations. These regulations mandate certain relocation assistance services. A section of county gravel road would also need to be relocated for runway development. As shown in this slide, maximum travel distance would be no more than 4,000 feet. There are no significant induced socioeconomic impacts anticipated from the proposed project. Past experience has shown that in similar economic conditions, a general aviation airport can serve as a catalyst for future economic growth. The air quality division of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control confirmed that the level of operations anticipated for this airport will not have a significant impact on air quality. The water quality division indicated an NPDES permit will be required to discharge storm water. Runoff will ultimately be directed towards natural drainage courses. As necessary, airport grading and design will include features to control the release of runoff. Final storm water drainage design will be coordinated with the Soil Conservation service and the County's drainage departments. The size and type of aircraft for which the airport will be designed contributes to low potential for a major fuel or oil spill. Any which occur will be controlled through the use of 7 wildlife and waterfowl refuges that will be affected by the project. In addition, an archaeological survey determined that no significant cultural resources would be affected. State and federal agencies contacted concerning biotic communities and endangered species indicated a preference for the Eagle Field Site to minimize potential habitat impacts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated there are no wetlands identified on the site according to the National Wetland Inventory maps. The site is also out of the 100 -year floodplain. The Soil conservation Service indicated that the Eagle Field Site would have the least impact on farmland. Regardless, the amount of airport property that remains in agricultural production will be maximized as an additional source of revenue to support airport operations. The proposed action is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the demand for energy and natural resources. Similarly, light emissions from this size of airport will not be significant. Finally, construction activities have the potential to create temporary air and water quality impacts. However, the FAA has strict standards intended to minimize dust and erosion impacts which are required to be included in construction specifications. In closing, I would like to mention that the proposed airport is consistent with the objectives of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, and the Nebraska State Airport System Plan. The City of Blair comprehensive plan states the City should make a decision to either, one, alleviate the prohibitive development deficiencies at the existing Blair airport; or, two, select an alternative site and build a new facility. This would allow for a higher level of air service to the community, safer facilities, and increased opportunities for economic development of related facilities in the community. Thank you. I JIM RYAN: If there's anyone out there that wants to speak and didn't fill out a registration form, if you want to I take a minute to do that, we'll start this third part of the hearing, which is the open forum for the public to come up and i state their comments. Joyce Cornwell? These are just random order the way they were turned in. Following Joyce will be Brad Holtorf, if you want to work your way towards the front when she's about finished. JOYCE CORNWELL: I give my address, correct, or just the name? JIM RYAN: Name and address, please. JOYCE CORNWELL: All right. Joyce Cornwell, Rural Route 2, Box 286, Omaha 68134. I am going to have John Page speak on my behalf. JOHN f • Page, There is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of other folks that the City of Blair has a responsibility, to its private and corporate citizens, of providing an adequate aviation facility. In carrying out this responsibility, it is necessary to look at every possible means of meeting the needs of the Blair community. Sometimes errors are made in evaluating resources available to meet a perceived need. There are times when the perceived need is greater than the actual need. I believe that there have been errors in the process used to select Eagle Field as the best of all possible sites for an airport to serve the perceived needs of Blair. I feel that the survey used to determine the need for an improved aviation facility placed too much emphasis on the needs and desires of people outside of Blair and Washington County. Less than seven percent of the survey questionnaires went to residents or firms in Blair, and a total of only 15 percent of the questionnaires went to Washington County residents or firms. According to an editorial by G. Harry Stine in the April 20, 1992 edition of Baron's, general aviation is on the H decline in the United States. In 1980, manufacturers delivered 10 :61 airplanes to general • consumers. ..0 only 1,144 were shipped to the same market, and only 449 of these were turboprop or turbojet corporate aircraft, Beech King Airs, Cessna Citations and the like. This editorial also states that there was a 15 percent decline in the number of licensed pilots in the U.S. between 1980 and 1992. There are plans by both the Council Bluffs Municipal Airport and the Plattsmouth airport, both of which are already classified as reliever airports, to upgrade their facilities. Council Bluffs plans to add T- Hangars, a corporate hangar and re- pave taxiways and aprons. The Plattsmouth airport will be adding hangars, a new terminal and doing two extensions to their runway, taking it out to 4,100 feet in 1993 and to 5,000 feet in 1994. Will these improvements adversely affect the ability of Eagle Field to draw airplanes? 2 Some economic concerns. Residential growth has contributed significantly to the growth in the property tax base of Washington County. A large part of this growth in single - family housing has taken place within a one -mile radius of Eagle Field. There is potential for substantial continued growth in residential housing in this area. If Eagle Field is developed as a reliever airfield for Eppley, a dampening effect will be felt in residential development in this part of the county. The study prepared for the airport project suggests strongly that zoning regulations be put in place to restrict, quote, "residential 11 3 There is another way in which this proposed facility will adversely impact our property tax base. Two hundred and . thirty -four acres and the physical improvements to this property will be removed from the property tax rolls. The feasibility study states that the property tax dollars lost by removing this property from the tax rolls can be made up through personal property taxes assessed against business aircraft based at Eagle Field. This is a remote possibility at best. Given the recent history on personal property tax decisions handed down by the Nebraska Supreme Court, it is very unlikely that the personal property tax will be around long enough to make up for the real property tax lost due to removing this property from the tax rolls. In addition to the impact on the property tax base, this project is going to generate a need for additional tax revenue. Increased vehicle traffic on Highway 133 will generate additional work for the Washington County Sheriff's Department. Highway 133 is already an extremely dangerous road. There have been three personal injury accidents within two miles of Eagle Field within the last two weeks. In my opinion, the sheriff's m Along with increased activity at Eagle Field will come a need for the volunteer fire departments that serve this area to upgrade and add equipment needed to fight aviation fuel fires. There will also be a need for additional training for the members of these departments. The dollars needed to pay for these o improvements will have to come from tax dollars. 5 The project itself will place a burden on the existing tax base, not only for construction of the project, but also to fund the ongoing operation of the facility. Another area that will require funding will be Highway 133 itself. Vehicle traffic in and out of the Eagle Field site will cause quite a bit of congestion on this highway. It is not unreasonable to assume that some type of interchange will need to be constructed at the entrance to Eagle Field. It will take land that is not currently within the right -of -way of Highway 133 to construct this interchange. I have to believe that the cost of this construction and the impact it would have on landowners in 0 the area have not been considered in the study for this facility. 7 Some environmental concerns. In the environmental assessment that was done for this project, it was stated that there are no wetlands in the project area. This statement is M The storage and use of fuels and lubricants on this site poses serious concerns for the residents surrounding the site. These people rely on wells for their drinking water. By enlarging Eagle Field and increasing activity at this site, you increase the potential for a fuel spill and the possible need to consider the presence of underground pipelines and overhead transmissi• - when choosing a site for What - report failed to d• was mention - d W petroleum pipeline that passes under the present facility at 11 Eagle Field. It also fails to mention the existence of a high voltage overhead transmission line to the north of the project site. The proximity of this line to Eagle Field was cause for Eppley Field representatives to actively campaign against its development as a reliever facility in the past. 12 The environmental analysis talks about noise from the airport being confined to airport property. I cannot accept this as a fact. The sound from current aircraft operations is perceptible by many of the residents of the area, including people who live in Lakeland Estates. 13 Social Concerns. As stated earlier in this document, Highway 133 is already an extremely dangerous road. Many of the people that live near Eagle Field must use Highway 133 to get to work or school. There are a number of school buses that use this highway. Increased activity at Eagle Field will increase vehicle traffic on the highway. The potential for more vehicle accidents and accompanying personal injury or possible loss of life is of great concern to the people in this area. 1A Fire protection is also an area of concern for people near this project. This area is served by three different volunteer fire departments, one in Bennington, one in Kennard and one in Fort Calhoun. These departments call on each other for mutual aid as well as calling on the Irvington, Ponca Hills and Blair Fire Departments. The Kennard Department is seven - and -a- 15 half miles from Eagle Field. Fort Calhoun is ten miles away, Irvington eight miles from the proposed facility, Bennington is eight- and -a -half -- excuse me, eight point one miles, and Blair is approximately ten miles from the site. Travel time from these fire departments to the Eagle Field site varies from 12 minutes to 20 minutes. This is travel time, not response time. Each of these departments is a volunteer department and must wait for the individual members to respond before any equipment can roll on.a call. Increased aircraft and vehicle traffic at the Eagle Field site will substantially increase the potential for calls on these departments. This will decrease their ability to respond to 15 calls in other parts of their fire districts. In summary, the conversion of Eagle Field from a private airfield to a reliever facility for Eppley Airport endangers the environment, imposes unnecessary financial burdens on the residents of Washington County, restricts the growth of Washington County's tax base, and increases the daily risks of current and future residents of the area. Today there are 15 percent fewer pilots than there were in 1980. The construction of small airplanes has been at a practical standstill since the early 1 80s. Existing reliever airports for Eppley Airport are improving their facilities, and this will make it more difficult for Eagle Field to realize the number of base planes projected in the study. If Eagle Field can not attract 50 based aircraft, this project will not qualify for the fast -track funding it is counting on. i E I also have a letter from a lady who could not attend this evening, and I have some documentation that verifies the 16 presence of those wetlands. Thank you. r JIM RYAN: Thank you, John. Brad? BRAD HOLTORF: I'm Brad Holtorf, my address is 340 East • ® attorney Military, Fremont, Nebraska. I m an a y here on behalf of Ray and Roberta Kruse. Mr. and Mrs. Kruse own 160 acres of farmland which is immediately to the south, adjacent to the present Eagle Field. I'm here to note their objection on the record to this proposal. In looking at the presentation that you've made here this evening, a couple things have stuck in my mind. The first one, you said that this has the least affect on any farmland. While maybe that is true in general, it certainly is not true in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Kruse. Their farmland is going to be affected dramatically by what you do. Presently, they are conducting a grain and a livestock operation on this particular tract of land along, of course, with the residents. I submit that the noise levels that you talked about here that maybe are tolerable in the general abstract is certainly going to affect their farming operation, specifically the livestock. The present airfield that is there now, they have noticed that when the planes take off or when they land, have a dramatic effect on 17 their livestock. According to your projections, if I have those right, I think you indicated 29,000 as being a minimum, going up m facilities that were proposed would not attract the same number of aircraft, and so the tax benefit would be greater at the Eagle Field site. Secondly, it goes quite a way to helping our job in economic development in the Chamber of Commerce. It would help us attract new businesses to the area by providing more facilities and better facilities that businesses would looking for in looking for a site. Finally, is that the industrial development prospects, the chance of an FBO or fixed -base operator deciding to locate at a field is going to be a lot greater at the site that has the most number of planes. In addition to that, there is a better chance of other service businesses which the airport might provide a base for, whether it's car rental or maybe a convenience store, or something like that. So in addition to an FBO that might come in, there are the other businesses that would base in the area. Thank you. JIM RYAN: Thanks, Dan. The next three will be Nella Hansen, Robert Nordstrom and Mick Jensen. NELLA HANSEN: My name is Nella Hansen. I represent my husband Bob, who can't be here tonight, and myself. We live right directly west of Eagle Field. We are against it primarily because of the noise factor; the fact that five years down the line we are afraid that you will decide that you need your cross wind runway, and that will take our house, our land, our W daughter's house, and her land. And we see no need -- I cannot believe that economically people are going to come from Omaha and stop at Eagle Field, park their cars, get into their planes, take off, do whatever they do when they get in their planes, come back, get in their cars, and then drive further north to give business to Blair. That's ludicrous. They will get in their cars, they will turn around and they will go back to Omaha where within the same length of distance they can find just as many . McDonald's, just as many Hardee's, just as many Taco Bell's as you can find in Blair. Plus the fact they have the advantage of stores and other things. They are not going to come to Blair. Economically, it is not feasible that they are going to drive to Blair. JIM RYAN: Thank you Nella. Robert Nordstrom. ROBERT NORDSTROM: I'm Robert Nordstrom, Route 2, Box 285, Omaha. I'm one of the residents that will be losing part of my land to this airport expansion. Seventeen years ago, approximately, we bought this land with the idea of a Christmas tree farm in mind to support us in our older ages, with the help of our Social Security, and give us a retirement. By taking part of that, you are going to take a big chunk of my retirement away from me. At my age it is going to be tough to rebuild on it, because it takes about eight years to get a Christmas tree ready for sale. If you buy that land, I hope you realize, you are buying all those trees at the going rate per foot that I'm NE xeeds. It is closer to Blair, it appears that it would attract economic development situation and that we will be able to see 21 Harvey Palmer. RAY SIMMONS: My name is Ray Simmons, address 2105 South gist Street, Omaha, Nebraska, Zip Code 68124. We are the owners of property immediately adjacent to Eagle Field in addition to property immediately across Eagle Field on the east side of the Highway 133. We have a vested interest in this project, since you intend to take at least some of our property for this project, and the balance you do not take will be heavily impacted. We are part past owners of Flightland Airport, which is now Eagle Field, for 22 years. During that length of time I kept the books for the company, and my wife and I dealt extensively with the pilots and aircraft owners who hangared there. Therefore, I feel that I am very familiar with the type of aircraft and pilots who have hangared there and why they hangar there. I'm also familiar with what has been considered through the years to be expansion limitations and /or opportunities. I'm also very familiar with the results of numerous studies, meetings, conversations, views and so forth conducted and presented through the years by the Omaha Airport Authority, the 22 City of Blair, and the pilots within the Blair community. The format I'd like to use is that of presenting some comments on certain subjects that pertain to our property and then asking questions about that subject. The first subject involves land acquisition costs. I'd like to stress for the record at this moment that I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong or immorally but, rather, I'm trying to establish in my mind and the mind of others the climate in which this whole process is taking place. Page nine of the study shows $1,754,000 for land acquisition at the Eagle site. For some reason the airport committee, as I understand it, in Blair decided to meet with the owners of Eagle Field to determine their willingness to sell and, 20 perhaps, their price expectations. One owner of Eagle Field is currently the chairman of the Omaha Airport Authority, which is also the person and the authority responsible for hiring Coffman Associates to work for them, which is the same consulting firm that Blair has hired for this study. Another owner is a board member of the Nebraska Department of Aeronautics, and last year was the chairman of that board. These two people are in powerful positions to know what's going on behind the scenes in addition to what is being presented to the public in general. Again, I'm emphasizing they are just in that position. What is going on, I do not know. They are in positions to influence the final decision, they are 23 in positions to influence the acquisition of funds and, finally, they are in positions to profit personally from this transaction. The committee elected not to meet with me or other 21 landowners to determine what our views were. As a result of your approach, it appears to be very discriminating in nature. You care about whether the Eagle Field owners are willing to sell, but you don't care about whether we are willing to sell. You perhaps are concerned about their price expectations, but not our price expectations. We understand that you have the right of eminent domain, and that's been used very well in this country, and serves a need. You can condemn our property for this project. However, you could also exercise the right of eminent domain against the Eagle Field property in the same fashion that you would others. By not visiting with us you don't know our willingness or unwillingness to sell. You don't know our price expectations and, probably worst of all, you could be missing, and you are missing,, valuable data that should have been included in the environment study. So I have three questions pertaining to this subject. Number one, I would like to know, and perhaps others would like to know, why you met with the Eagle Field owners and not the rest of us. I would like to know your specific rationale 22 on that approach. Number two, I would like to know the breakdown of the $1,750,000 for land acquisition; how much goes to me, how being developed in this vicinity, and that is very true, because we experienced that. A publicly -owned airport can prevent development in this vicinity, that that is also true. Page 22 recommends that the County develop a strong stance regarding 25 recently sold in there for the equivalent of $12,500 an acre. There is currently a well that's been sunk on the site and, apparently, the owner is about ready to build. These folks will own their own private road, they will have to do their own snow removal, their own grading and everything. In relation to that situation, our property is bound on two sides by very well maintained county roads. The contour of our land is perfect, according to a developer for development purposes. We also have a pond on that property, which is an attractive viewpoint from the standpoint of development. So one would lead one to believe that our property has to be worth at least as much or more than the lots in this estate. I'm not criticizing the estate, it is a very fine location. I'm just saying that ours is comparable and maybe even more desirable. Page 23 states that the equivalent of three Beech MR barns, some horses running around with white fences, a very attractive, beautiful atmosphere, one that ours is conducive to. As a footnote, I would like to mention that in the past Beech Barons have been hangared at Flightland. In fact, the HunTel had a Beech Baron hangared there from 1970 through 1976. I know for a fact that Beech Barons can and probably do fly and in and out of there at will with no restrictions. So I guess we just have to wonder why perhaps millions of dollars would have to be spent to provide an aircraft facility that's already there. 25 By the way, I would like to mention that I am an instrument -rated pilot, so I'm somewhat familiar with the needs of private aviation in this area. That is the segment of private aviation that that type of field attracts. I have two questions concerning that subject. Number one: How do you intend to compensate landowners such as me for future financial losses due to loss development opportunities? And, number two: Have you factored in the future tax roll losses caused by eliminating the development of prime property such as ours? Next item, highway safety and potential future land acquisition and related costs. This has already been mentioned in one aspect, but I'd like to add to it. The December 3rd, 1992, Enterprise, local paper, carried a very well- written story about an accident that occurred on Highway 133 near the Lakeland exit. That was the second accident within three days after the shoulders had been widened to accommodate the traffic pattern. M We all know that Highway 133 carries a tremendous amount of traffic, that does not require a traffic engineer or a college degree to understand that. If your assumptions on aircraft growth and the number of operations is even close, the traffic problem at the Eagle's entrance will be absolutely unacceptable. Therefore, one can conclude that there is going to be a need for an elaborate intersection of some kind which would provide turn- off lanes, highway widening, signs, islands, maybe even lights. 27 This gets back to me, probably additional land acquisition, which is definitely an environmental impact. This means more of my property condemned, because I doubt seriously whether you'll encroach upon the Eagle site property for more land since the hangars and runway for the type of traffic you're talking about are already too close to the highway for safety. I have three questions I'd like to have answered concerning that subject. Number one, where in this study do you 28 address this issue? Number two, what do you expect the additional cost to be? And, number three, who's going to pay for it? Another item I'd like to address is water quality. I don't know whether you are familiar with the fact that we have a pond on our property. I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the environmental impact study. I'd like to mention we have a nice little pond there which in the past had fish in it. It's been used for fishing, ice skating, and the local children, just 28 general activity. It's a definite asset to our property. The airport -- again, it does not take an engineer to prove this, drains into that pond area at this time. Right now it is not a problem because there is insufficient activity. However, I don't -- So my question is this. I do not see that addressed in the study and I would like to know specifically what you intend 29 to do to ensure the water quality in my pond. Another item, power access. Page 22 states that the overhead power lines on the south side of the proposed airport site would need to be buried. I'm not sure that you are aware of this, because I didn't see it in the report, but the power equipment that the Eagle Field owners own, which would include relays, boxes, meters, entrance, and so forth, are located on my property. They currently have an easement to have it on my property, which expires February 1st of next year. We might consider -- we've been talking about renewing it for a short period of time simply because of the study to determine what the outcome is going to be. They were supposed to have made a move to bring in a different power entrance but apparently have not. If we would not renew that easement right as of February 1st, 1933 (sic), I believe, my opinion now, that they will be trespassing on our property. Without that equipment on our property, if we were to cut that off after February 1st of 1993, Eagle Field will literally be sitting there without any power without first making a significant capital expenditure to bring RE in a different power entrance. My question concerning power access: Would you have to acquire more land than the study 30 currently indicates to provide for a different power entrance? I can assure you I do not care to have a buried power entrance going through the balance of our land, which would be a further restriction to any development of any kind on our property. Another issue, environmental, trees. The property that we currently own which you say you will be needing, I think it is about 20 acres, currently has a grove of hardwood trees. We have been purposely conserving these trees for many years for a potential building site. In fact, that's where the old farm homestead used to be. I do not see that mentioned in this report. They are on the piece of property that you will acquire. I guess I'm very surprised that you haven't mentioned the pond or these trees or the power or anything else, because there was great detail concerning wagon wheel ruts, broken bottles and things of that nature. So my question is, have you assigned an environmental impact assessment to this and have you factored the value into the property value. 31 Another point, environmental pipeline, it's been mentioned briefly. There is currently a pipeline that runs directly under the Eagle Field site. When we owned the property that was always considered to be an improvement limitation. I think we all know that you don't build anything directly over a pipeline. I understand that that course can be changed, but I obi] have questions that I would like to have addressed concerning that. Number one, will the pipeline be moved? Secondly, what is the environmental impact of moving that pipeline and whose property will it be on? What's the cost? What future 32 limitations will it put on those property owners? Another factor, facilities on our property versus Eagle Field. Page 410 of Phase Two of your report states that Eagle Field utilizes an on -site water well and a septic system. To my knowledge, neither of those facilities have ever been, nor are they today, on Eagle Field. Our property has those facilities, though currently not in use. My question is, could you be confusing our property with theirs and, if so, how accurate is your estimate of property values for land acquisition purposes? 33 I have a question specifically relating to our property that you would not be acquiring that is adjacent to the airport. There is a map which is next to page 12, and it shows a little rectangular shaded area, and I cannot determine from that what that is, if that's just a glitch in the map or whether that's a little piece that has to be acquired for a tower or an instrument landing system facility, or something of that nature, so I would like to have that addressed. 34 I have many, many other things. I'm not going to -- I know I'm probably running out of time and I'm not going to bring it up now, because I wanted to stick strictly to those issues that relate to our property. However, I have many others that 31 reading today's newspaper and hearing you state that the information that -- or the answers to our questions are going to be provided later in writing. And I'd like to encourage everybody, whether you are for the airport, or against the airport, it makes no difference, put your name on the list to get your written response. I always feel this way about these things. In addition to time limitations, I understand those, but whenever you ask questions of this nature and then you're not responded to for some period of time, it makes one wonder if -- what the logic was in taking the action to begin with. If the action taken had logic and reason behind it, a person should be able to respond to that almost instantaneously. Like I mentioned, we have tried to take an open - minded approach to this project. We are advocates of fairness. I'd like to mention that we visited with Mr. Rod Storm in his office one day about some of these issues, and I'd like to mention that he was a very pleasant person to meet with, we've been well - treated by the City Hall and the City of Blair, and we appreciate that very much. We don't have any hard feelings one way or the other. We understood that if we came here tonight with these questions, they would be 32 answered, and it appears that they will not be answered tonight. You folks have spent tens of thousands of dollars getting to this point of the project and probably have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours and yet here we are provided with ten minutes to defend our property. I just want to go on record as stating that as far as a citizen of the State of Nebraska, a taxpayer of Washington County and a citizen of this country, I'm going to make every assurance that our rights are not violated.. I think that that's all I can do for now. Thank you. JIM RYAN: Thank you, Ray. Joan Simmons? JOAN SIMMONS: My name is Joan Simmons and I live at 2105 South 91st Street, Omaha. My question -- we did ask this of Rod Storm -- was as to when the figures would be out, when the budget would be out, and his answer was December 1st. We have not received anything and the girls at the office, Rod's office, have been very good about informing us and keeping us in touch, but I think this is the most important figures to put in 35 everyone's hand, and I do think that the people's property that surrounds this airport should be treated as fairly as the owners of the airport. And thank you for your consideration. JIM RYAN: Thank you, Joann. Harvey Palmer, followed by Lloyd Scheve and Ellen Dahlstet. HARVEY PALMER: My name is Harvey Palmer, and I live at Rural Route 1, Fort Calhoun, Nebraska. I'm a private pilot and I fly out of Eagle Field, and it's a nice, small field the way it W many, many years. Blair, Nebraska is going to expand in the future. I is expanding now and it is going to continue. This area is going 01 11 , facility near Blair, Nebraska, there were very many considerations given in the site selection by that company. Having worked on economic development as a member of the Chamber of Commerce board and the past president, there are more considerations than just airport, there are more considerations than just water, there are more considerations than people. However, when they are all put together, each of those items are considered. To land a company the size of a Cargill with a $300 million investment in the community would be the equivalent of adding 3,000 homes at $100,000 apiece to the county's tax rolls. So when one thinks about an airport, that it may not have a major impact or it may eliminate some houses or some other property, the long -term impacts regarding one major manufacturing industry coming into an area can more than offset those in the long -run. I'm not here to speak either yes or no regarding the site. I'm here to say that 35 years ago one of the major areas of consideration by the Blair Area Chamber of Commerce was an airport study. I'm here to say that the study has gone on, and I feel that something has to be done with the Blair airport currently. It can no longer serve us as we go into the 21st century. We are one -- I think the only community in the State of Nebraska that shares an airport with a golf course. That is a very dangerous situation that we all can consider. I think whether this be the site or not the site, I have to encourage the people of the City of Blair and on this study to continue to move 35 forward, because for us to continue to recruit industry, we do need to upgrade and improve our current airport situation. Regarding Highway 133 and the continued heavy traffic that comes on it, I would encourage all those in attendance this evening to attend the State of Nebraska, when they have a transportation meeting in the area. I attended one a couple of weeks ago, perhaps a month ago. At that time Highway 133 was brought out by the area Chamber of Commerce as needing to be expanded and to be considered on the long -term plans of the State of Nebraska that the additional amount of people that are commuting back and forth between Omaha and Blair put continued pressure on that highway and I think an airport alongside of that, having adding that additional pressure, perhaps would help get the State of Nebraska to expand that highway faster than what they may consider it to work with. In my last words, again, I would reiterate, we cannot continue in the same form that we are. You cannot stand still. You must move forward, whether it be this or another site. We must continue to try to move towards economic development and an airport is essential to that for Blair. Thank you. JIM RYAN: Thanks, Lloyd. Ellen Dahlstet, followed by Todd Cornwell and Duane Wilcox. ELLEN DAHLSTET: I pass for now. JIM RYAN: Todd? TODD CORNWELL: My name is Todd Cornwell, Route 2, 36 Omaha, and the Zip Code is 68134. I think there has been a lot of good points brought out and one or a couple of my concerns is that in the study it stated that there is roughly $5,700 of property taken off the tax rolls that is going to have to be made up by the rest of us, type of thing. Roughly -- and I'm using approximate figures -- 200 acres of farmland taken out of production. From the owners -- if the owner in private hands was getting a modest $50 -an -acre return, that would amount to $10,0.00 that would not be paying any income tax on and in the 40 percent tax bracket that's in the area of $4,000 of less income, because the City of Blair wouldn't pay any income tax. So real quickly, that's about $10,000 of tax loss on them two items alone. 38 The total cost of the airport is approaching $5 million, and the City of Blair only has nine airplanes at their existing airport that can handle that kind of aviation. It looks like if they put $5 million in a new airport, you are only going to serve one or two planes from Washington County. So it equates to building an airport for $5 million for one or two planes, 39 because the smaller planes have an adequate runway space to land right now. Most of the people that would use the airport would be from Douglas County, and so the residents of Washington County is really supplementing all of the people from Douglas County that would be using Washington County's airport. 40 Another factor with what it would cost to run the airport would be the mowing and the snow removal that would have 37 Another complaint I really got is a lot of -- making sure everybody understands that when they talk 95 percent cost sharing, first of all, we are all paying that 95 percent. So it makes it sound like the City of Blair would be only having to pay five percent when in fact there is really no federal funding -- for hangars and a fixed -base operator building. Now a hangar cost in the book stated $770,000, so the City of Blair would have a lot more costs than what it would appear. In general, I think we got a private airport that is serving the needs of the community and let private enterprise handle this and don't get the government involved with it. The existing owners have indicated to me that if there was a need, they would build a hangar on their own, so they got the capacity to do that without increasing the runway and all of that. In closing, and I guess the question I have, what's going to happen to the existing airport if this all happens? Is there any plans on selling it, and if they do sell it at market value type of thing, or what are they planning on doing with the M 42 airport out there? That's all I have. Thank you. 43 JIM RYAN: Thank you, Todd. Duane Wilcox, Richard Hunt 38 and Charles Johnson. DUANE WILCOX: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Duane Wilcox, my address is Box 176, Kennard, Nebraska. I am currently a member of the Washington County Board of Supervisors. Consequently, this new proposed area will be in the heart of my district come January 1st. At the present time I do not represent the entire district, but as of January 1st I will. I would like to go on record saying that I have had many calls,. many numerous conversations, meetings, one thing or another, and I have yet to hear one person that has anything -- any property, lives anywhere around the proposed area that favors it. At this state of the game and this time of the evening there has been a lot of facts stated here tonight and I think there has been a lot of good facts. Pro or con, there has been some good facts that have been raised. I don't have a whole lot that I can probably add to this that hasn't already been said in one way or the other. I don't remember if he was the first speaker or not, but one of the first speakers was John Page. I think he brought up something very good that was going to be my number one point, but it has kind of been knocked down since that because other people have spoke on it. Maybe it's having many years in the service, myself, of fire and rescue, but that is the number one item and it is going to be the number one item wherever the airport may be, whether Eagle Field is the site or whether it 39 isn't. At the present time -- I'm not going to dwell on this very long -- at the present time the protocol would be for a fire or crash, whatever it may be, any type call at Eagle Field, the dispatcher would automatically dispatch Fort Calhoun with an automatic mutual aid to Kennard and probably an automatic mutual aid to Blair and then go from there. Now that's the protocol that I was told today. It may vary a little from what was said earlier, but I assure you that was all very close, and this is what I was told by the dispatcher today. So fire and rescue are a big thing. The highway has been mentioned, which I think is an 44 important issue. I guess there was one thing that has kind of stuck in my mind a little bit. I've heard all of the tax that is going to be lost by the farmland that is going to be taken out. I've heard all the personal property tax that is going to be paid on the approximate airplanes that are going to be in there. I done just a little bit of checking on this and quoting from the County Assessor, there is only one airplane at the present time in Washington County that is on the tax roll. I think I've heard it said that there may be five or six large -- fairly large airplanes come in. You have to understand I'm not real up to date on the size of airplanes. I know they fly, I know they land, they take off, but as what one actually is to another, I'm not too up on that. Anyhow, I do know that it has to be a MCI business plane -- excuse me, a business plane that is not depreciated out before there is any personal property tax paid on it, so I don't believe that tax issue is going to be a great selling point regardless where the airport may be. I guess in my closing thought, I tried to read the book and if any of you have looked at it, it is quite a long book and, consequently, it is a pretty good book. Sometimes I guess I might have dozed just a little bit when I was reading it, but I know that I never did find anyplace in there, in that study, where it said that there had been any type of a study done to any of the folks in the City of Blair, approximately 7 residents, as to what their personal feeling might be for paying taxes to build an airport that I don't know for sure how many it is going to exactly benefit, whether they are feeling or that they really want to go out on a limb to pay more taxes to build an airport or not. Other than that, I guess that's about all I have, and I'd like to thank you for my time. RICHARD HUNT: I appreciate this opportunity to come and offer comments. First of all, I'll say that -- My name is Richard Hunt, I live in Blair, 777 Skyline Drive. I'm a licensed pilot, I have a multi- engine rating, instrument rated. I've flown from Alaska to Guatamala to both coasts, Canada. I have a lot of experience in flying. For 19 years my brother and I owned a fixed -base operation in Brownsville, Texas, so I think I'm qualified to have opinions on airports. My opinion is the site HN selection that the committee has made, they've made the correct decision. I think you've selected the best site. Another person suggested that a better site would be down in the bottomland. There are certain advantages in being the bottomland. There is also advantages in being on highland and in the relatively close proximity of Eppley Airfield I would say that highland is better, because if there is fog that fogs in Eppley and you have another airport down in the bottomland it will also be fogged in, whereas up in the hills it will be clear. On the other hand, if you have low clouds that would close Eagle Field, then Eppley would be open. So that's a good reason to select a high location. Some of the people have commented on the concern that this field would cause increased highway traffic. I guess I would say I hope it does. I see this as having a very positive -- potentially a very positive economic impact. I think that it would be exaggeration, though, to think it's going to have a profound impact on highway travel, even if it is a successful airport. Someday there will be a retail mall out there in that area and that mall will generate many more cars going in and out of the mall from the road than from an airport. M not. In that location, I think that airport would attract many airplanes. It would probably attract more airplanes than any other field in the area. I think it -- it seems to me to be reasonable to assume that eventually that would be the best general aviation airport in the entire area in and around Omaha. That covers all my notes. Thank you very much. JIM RYAN: Thank you, Richard. Charles Johnson? Steven McVay and Joanne DiMari. CHARLES JOHNSON: My name is Charles Johnson, I live at Route 2, Box 168, Blair, Nebraska, approximately seven miles south of Blair on State Highway 133 a mile - and -a -half north of the present facility at Eagle Field. I'd like to make several comments. The first thing that kind of worries me is that I get the Blair paper tonight and I look at it and it shows a picture on the front page of all the city councilmen for the City of Blair and I realize they're coming up with a project that they vote on with the assistance, as I understand it, of maybe their airport authority. And the people I voted for, my county board member and the county board, I'm not sure how much say they have in it. In other words, we are talking -- it doesn't sound like the democratic process I remember, where I have -- my rep gets any kind of vote in it. The other thing that worries me about this is it looks like the Blair Chamber of Commerce and the Blair City Council picked the site and then proceeded to call upon this 45 airport consultant, Coffman, to approve that site. I don't like 43 M. ., JIM RYAN: Steve McVay and Joanne Dlmarl and then Mamie Schmidt. STEVE McVAY: Well, my name is Steve McVay, I'm a nurse 45 from an airport, unless proper consideration is made, we are going to have a lot bloodier highway than we currently have. It's not my intention to come home and take care of car wrecks out in front of my house. I do believe due consideration must be made for proper widening of the highway and if that is to occur, has that been accounted for in the long -range plans for the State of Nebraska and for this particular study. My second concern has to do with the water table impact and percolation of any drainage from the area into the current water table and has proper well depth been considered for its impact on the local current landowners and potential draining of that water supply. My concern about the effluent with regard to drainage, it may fit current FAA standards and environmental considerations, but will it fit the particular topography and the depth of the local water table that will be utilized for this particular site? Also, it is my hope that the Blair area continues to expand and grow. I have a little squealing three - week -old that I hope to have a participant in the Blair school systems in the near future, and it is my hope that we do have an impact on the economic part of the community by the addition of Cargill and other such entities coming in the area, but I don't want it to be at the expense of lives and I don't want it to be at the expense of taxpayers and I also don't want it to be at the expense of future learners in the Blair school system. And also the current landowners, is proper consideration going to be taken 50 M . �jm 53 47 who are living in Looking Glass Hills, and they do not agree with your project. I take a personal offense at the fact that 133 Estates was not even included in your study. No one ever contacted any of us on 133 Estates about this particular property. Now our 133 Estates does not have any interior streets. It covers approximately almost three miles starting at the end of Dr. Longo's property, coming down State Highway 133, cutting down the county road going back to the end -- like the first block, it would really be about four blocks, picking up and going around and picking up the back end of Dr. Longo's property. There are currently 17 families living on our subdivision and one about to build. Mr. Rosenbaum will come to us in the spring from Kennard, so you are talking about 18 families on large acreages. We have several people on our subdivision who will be impacted with the flight of these planes and the noise from these planes 55 going right over their properties. I do not speak for Countrylands, but I have talked to people in Countrylands who take an offense that no one called them about their feelings about this project as well, and that's not fair to them to be excluded from this as though they do not exist. Now we are talking about broadening the tax base for Washington County to make this a more viable tax service for the county. I'm willing to be corrected on this, but it is my understanding that having a viable airport service or a place to keep a plane was not one of the deals you cut with Cargill. Cargill flies into Des Moines, Iowa when it wants to do its projects in Iowa and it rents cars because they do not consider it cost - effective to have to keep and maintain their own planes. So saying that Cargill has a need for that airport just doesn't seem to click with me somehow. Then I have another question for one of our town fathers. I just heard the other day and it upset me. Mr. Hunt plans to move his accounting department from the Blair facility down to the facility that he's had for several years now in Douglas County, thereby continuing to broaden the Douglas County tax base with HunTel Communications. I'm wondering why he could not build something in our town. We have a nice town in Blair, there is nothing wrong with our town, and we're a very driveable range from the general area of Omaha. Why is he doing such a large portion of his business in Douglas County when Washington County needs such a broad tax base? I'd like to have the answers to those questions and I'm sure a lot of people in this room would like to have the answers to those questions as well. I Fly* process of this property that this was something that was under consideration for his area. He says to me, "When was this going on, is this a recent thing ?" I told him the first public hearing, to my knowledge, was February 27th of 1992. He said, "Then it would seem to me that the realtor who was working with me would have been aware of that, would he not ?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Well, it's strange, because I asked him specifically what the plans were for that airport area, and he assured me that nothing that was going to happen there was going to impact him." Now he paid $25,000 for a two -acre property there, he's got a well sunk probably to the tune of about $5,400, and he plans to build a very nice home there in the spring. Currently he lives at 5106 North 78th Street in Omaha, in a beautiful all- brick home with a three car garage, two fireplaces, about an acre or so -- an acre plus or minus of ground, a very nice house. He told me that he has no interest in having a home that small 50 corporate jets are going to buzz over the roof of when he's going to put that kind of money into his property. Now I would feel that since Mr. Hunt feels it is prudent to have a shopping mall, a mini - business park and an extended area for the airport, that there are some very nice lots left in Bakke Estates, and I would invite him to purchase one and live in our area with us so he can enjoy the same amenities we do. However, if he would like to be on the widened Highway 133, I would be more than happy to sell him my 7.78 acres at current market price posthaste. Thank you. MARY ANN JOHNSON: My name is Mary Ann Johnson, my address is Box 168, Rural Route 2, Blair, Nebraska. I had not planned to speak this evening when I came up here, I was just going to allow my husband to talk, but after hearing some of the remarks this evening on what was proposed in this area, they got a little wild. This is the time I was about ready to come out of the woodwork. I am -- I will be right up- front. I am a hard core environmentalist. I believe in conservation. As I read this study that was made for this area, I saw nothing ever mentioned about the energy, proposed energy of our future. We lived through the 1 70s. In 1973 we had one of the biggest oil embargos. It was a big oil embargo, it was the only one we ever had, but they are guaranteed there will be more. The cost of energy is guaranteed to go up. There is no way that we cannot consider building an airport and assume that business as usual 51 down the future road. We found that out in 1 73. There is no such thing as business as usual. Having shopping malls, this is only going to encourage the consumption of fossil fuels which are a finite resource. We only have three percent of the world's resources as far as oil is concerned. The rest of the world controls -- we have -- the Arabs control us. We are only puppets on the string. What happens when they start pulling them and start cutting loose and saying, "Hey, the price is going to go up." I read the business pages besides the environmental pages. In the business page it says that in another four years the price of oil will go up. Our energy costs. How is this airport going to survive then? The way I read it in my books, airplanes consume -- this is a statement I read -- they consume a large amount of fossil fuels. 56 They pollute a large amount at the same time. What is the rate of carbon dioxide that would be emitted into my environment? That we'll have to take into consideration. This is not mentioned in that study whatsoever. The amount of carbon dioxide, the consumption of fuel for each one of these planes that is going to fly. This is only encouraging consumption and we're going to have to start thinking within the next couple of years about energy conservation, not consumption. Also, my husband neglected to mention about the waterfowl that I think in your study it points out that they gave a better rating as far as waterfowl to the north of Blair, than 52 our area down there. Just Sunday afternoon at 4:00 I look out and see big flock of geese flying over. That is in the flight path of any plane that would be coming off of Eagle Field, or 57 whatever you want to call it. We have seen pelicans, great blue herons, I have watched the down drafting, spinning, of the pelicans in our area. We have just as much waterfowl in our area. I have witnessed it, I have seen it, as you have in the north airport as well. That was -- I don't see why we got such.a good rating that -- hey, there's no birds down there. You can't tell an Audubon person that. Thank you. JIM RYAN: That was the last person that signed up to speak, unless Joe Dimari and Tom Kryal have something to add to what John Page said on their behalf. JOE DIMARI: We'll pass. JIM RYAN: In closing, I would thank you all for coming and assure you that the City Council, most of which is here, is listening to your comments. The study is all a part of the overall program, and I want to remind you that it is just that at this point. There is no commitment anywhere to do anything. There has been nobody contacted about buying any land. There are. other hearings by the advisory committee and then it would have to go in front of the City Council before anything goes any further than you are seeing this evening, and you will have chances for inputs at those times. So with that, if there are no other comments, we will close this hearing. AKI AUDIENCE: What's your time table? What JIM RYAN: I don't know. AUDIENCE: Can't that be put in the newspaper? JIM RYAN: Certainly. It will be. _AUDIENCE: Because I think it's only fair that we know what's going to happen. JIM RYAN: The airport advisory committee -- AUDIENCE: I thought it was unfair to put your process in for the conduction of this meeting today. That should have been put in with the notices before. I think you deserve to give us that courtesy. JIM RYAN: The notices will be in the paper, and they have been for the other advisory committee. AUDIENCE: What about the time table? What happens next? What do you do after this? JIM RYAN: Rod? middle of January and the first part of February that the Advisory Committee would be meeting to make further recommendations as to proceed, not to proceed, or what to do with the project in recommendations to the City Council. Xuestions. Thank you everybody for coming. M C L R T I 1 CAT E i STATE OF NEBRASKA ) ss COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) I, Julianne Dixon Plugge, General Notary Public and Certified Court Reporter in and for the State of Nebraska, do hereby certify that the within and foregoing meeting was taken by me at the time and place herein specified and contains all matters required to be included herein. Dated this day of December, 1992. i Doi 00 ON ME41i''11HIM fir' °,,• ;;, .. •� �` K•,:I�.:.i' �.,... .�;�. • wr. 4 NI IL , � •{I�\ \ %�' 4 ,t j;t •E� • y! " ; •. •�y { 't • •;J •. l 1.. ;t • r1LL �•. •' ;�.� �f, 1 .7} \ ♦ ♦ y ,`�j•• { :;,. ?ij, ?' SFr 1 '! i i;t�t1'v +a�� 'L: r.! ; f .' ;C ++ �: A' ` ►� l LL AF aA QIj • '' ti / :� \ \ \ / ^�,,��f ry, .S•v:�}.' .. ,i j.. , ,. .rj: , �`� t i•i"�' \ 1:T 1 ® .j, 1 »; �k1r 1�I :,4r�'3'•' /N10 1I .1 \`'.•.;.. `,t 4r'' • 1 `•• Yl r ... ,•ter: �.1 Si I\ ' t �`• r t , ••-.. . • 1 •�•• �1 I � ! v i � � ♦ :...•i' •.:i ► r ,; •. 574' ••+ � \ � .��". ! r 1.' .,�•: e . , , � t r ®' 4 I ; � .,'�/ 1 •�,� ' ;,� t,t, °� 1 •.'. ?•'•. .• •'+ I ,` • � 1• �. `' • :r ''•' f' 1' . //� �`M,•q :�� ( N ri[1, ti's• +'• • h �W 0i j•.3� ,'y ",' '.1.:`r' : ' IS (C IA •, ,• w� �� w'., •.... s: t ' .1i. , +!• .. �/ •.M ;lt : { � 4 .i `' a r' 4:. ��J 1� !� 4 R .4 l' •` ':;.,� ►• '•�i `' 'i`, .fir. `.... .�, ` , .. 3 m ®... �,•'� `•• "'rte' a •�,'. •r wt /' .a•��w.•4 w �R' i •t l U.S.O,A. SCS- CPA -029 1, Name and Address of Penon 2. Date of Request $olt Con anon Service (1 - 88) Martin Hoer HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND AND WETLAND 5711 Tucker 3. County CONSERVATION DETERMINATION Omaha, NE 68152 Washington 4, Name of USDA Agency or Parson Requesting Determination 5. Farm No, and Tract No. ASCS 1806 T772 SECTION I — HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND i 8, is soil survey now avellable for making a highly erodible land determination? you No Field No.(0 Total Acres 7. Are there highly erodible soil map units on this farm? 1. List highly erodible fields that, according to ASCS records, were used to produce an agricultural commodity in any crop year during 1981.1985, 9. List highly erodible fields that have been or will no converted for the production of agricultural commodities and, according to ASCS records, were not used for this purpose In any crop yes, during 1981.1985, and were not enrolled In a USDA set-aside or diversion Erogram. 10. This Highly Erodible Land determination was completed in the: Office Field NOTE: If you have highly erodible cropland fields, you may need to have a conservation plan developed for the" fields. For further Information, contact the local office of the Soil Conservation Service. CF( Tir)N II ® WETtAND 1. Are there hydric soils on this farm? Yes No Field No.(a) Total Wstland Acres —lot field numbers and acres, where appropriate, for the following EXEMPTED WETLANDS: 2. Wetlands (W), Including abandoned wetlands, or Farmed Wetlands (FW). Wetlands may be farmed under natural conditions, Farmed Wetlands may ?' be farmed and maintained In the same manner as they were prior to ,c �� ®, December 23, 1985, as long as they are not abandoned. v l !� '3. Prior Converted Wetlands (PC) • The use, management, drainage, and alteration :::.:. ,:;::.,•' <': ". , of prior converted wetlands (PC) era not subject to FSA unless the area reverts to wetland as a result of abandonment. You should Inform SCS of any area to ' ? be used to produce an agricultural commodity that has not been cro pped, managed, or maintained for'5 years or more, 4. Artificial Wetlands (AW) • Artificial Wetlands Includes Irrigation induced wetlands, These Wetlands are not subject to FSA. 6, Minimal Effect Wetlands (MW) • These wetlands are to be farmed according to the minimal affect agreement signed at the time the minimal effect determination was made. N•EXE W ETLANDS: L Converted Wetlands (CW) • in any year that an agricultural commodity is planted on these Converted Wetlands, you will be Ineligible for USDA benefits. if you believe that the conversion was commenced before December 23, 1985, or that the conversion was caused by a third party, contact the ASCS office to request a commenced or third party determination. 17. The planned alteration measures on wetlands In fields with FSA, are considered maintenance and era in compliance r.:. Signature of SCS District Conservationist wistance and programs of the Soil Conservation Service available without regar to race, /ailgibn, col or, aa!2 go, handicap, etc. SCS Copy 23. Data 2 -2Z -qt U.S.D.A. 1 ' SCS-CPA-026 1, Name and Addren of Person 12. Date of Request 9011 Con atlon Service (1.88) Martin Hoer 5711 Tucker Omaha, NE 68152 3. County Washingt 4. Name of USDA Agency or Parson Requesting Oeterminatlon 6, Farm No. and Tract No, ASCS 1806 T79 SECTION I — HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND S. Is soil survey now available for making a highly erodible land determination? yes No Field No.ls) Total Acres X Litt field numbers and acres, where appropriate, for the following 7. Are there highly erodible soil map units on this farm? EXEMPTED WETLANDS: 9. List highly erodible fields that, according to ASCS records, wera used to produce an agricultural commodity in any crop year during 1981.1985. 12. Wetlands (W), Including abandoned wetlands, or Farmed Wetlands (FW). 9. List highly erodible fields that have been or will be converted for the production of agricultural commodities and, according to ASCS records, were not used for this purpose in any crop year during 1981.1985, and were not enrolled In a USDA set aside or diversion program. `•: Wetlands may be farmed under natural conditions. Farmed Wetlands may 10. This Highly Erodible Land determination was completed In the: Office Li Field NOTE: If you have highly erodible cropland fields, you may need to have a conservation plan developed for these fields. For further Information, contact the local office of the Soil Conametion Service. SECTION II — WETLAND 11. Are there hydric soils on this farm? Yas No Field No.(s) Total Wetland Acres Litt field numbers and acres, where appropriate, for the following EXEMPTED WETLANDS: 12. Wetlands (W), Including abandoned wetlands, or Farmed Wetlands (FW). Wetlands may be farmed under natural conditions. Farmed Wetlands may be farmed and maintained In the same manner as they were prior to December 23, 1985, as long as they are not abandoned, 13. Prior Converted Wetlands (PC) • The use, management, drainage, and alteration of prior converted wetlands (PC) are not subject to FSA unless the area reverts to wetland as a result of abandonment. You should Inform SCS of any area to be used to produce an agricultural commodity that has not berain cropped, managed, or maintained for'5 years or more. 14, Artificial Wetlands (AW) • Artificial Wetlands includes Irrigation Induced wetlands. Those Wetlands are not subject to FSA, 15, Minimal Effect Wetlands (MW) . These wetlands are to be farmed according to the minimal effect agreement signed at the time the minimal effect determination was made. NON-EXEMPTED WETLANDS: 6. Converted Wetlands (CW) • In any year that an agricultural commodity Is planted on these Converted Wetlands, you will be ineligible for USDA benefits. If you believe that the conversion was commenced before Dumber 23, 1985, or that the conversion was caused by a third party, contact the ASCS office to request a commenced or third party determination. 17. The planned alteration measures on wetlands In fields _ are considered maintenance and are in compliance with FSA. 8. The planned alteration measures on wetlands in fields are not considered to be maintenance and if installed will cause the area to become a Converted Wetland (CW). See Item 16 for information on CW. 1. Remarks No Wet a o ds end% ca . Signature of SCS District Conservationist ssistance a pro grams of the Soil Co nser v ation Servic availaola w ithout regar t o race 'Irellgion, col , sex, age, handicap, etc. 23. Data SCS Copy 0 L6 LA v December 22, 1992 TO: Rod Storm and members of the Airport Advisory Committee FROM: Todd and Joyce Cornwell REGARDING: Comments and questions about the proposed Blair Airport We have elected to utilize the proceedure described in the December 10, 1992 article in the Blair Enterprise to submit concerns and questions about the proposed general aviation airport for Blair at the Eagle Field site. It is our understanding that these will become a part of the public record and will be answered in writing in a timely fashion. While our concerns and questions are myriad, we have chosen just a few for your attention. Our first point of concern is the pipeline that currently runs under Eagle Field. On the maps of the proposed general aviation '1 airport at Eagle Field, there is no indication or mention of this pipeline. It appears that the proposed buildings will go directly over the pipeline. Our questions are as follows: 1. What have the owners of the pipeline said about this situation and how does this comply with current guidelines regarding building, etc. near the pipleline? 2. Will the pipeline have to be moved, and, if so, who will carry the financial burden for this move? 3. What impact will this situation have on the safety of nearb y residents? Currently, there are high tension wires in the very close proximity of Eagle Field. These wires are marked with large red balls so as to increase their visibility to aircraft utilizing Eagle Field. The runway will be increased in length to handle the aircraft that the advisory committee would like to attract to the new airport. This would bring those high tension wires even more directly into the approach of the aircraft. Nowhere in any phase of the report are these high tension wires mentioned. They cannot be ignored as a factor in this proposed general aviation facility. There appears to be a potential safety hazard for both aircraft and residents in the area. 1. What factor will these high tension wires play in the approach and /or flight patterns at the proposed general aviation facility? 2. What impact on the public safety do you foresee as a result of this combination of high tension wires and larger aircraft utilizing the planned facility? 3. Will the high tension wires have to be moved, and, if so, who will shoulder the fiancial burden for this move? 4. What contingency plans exist to cover such unplannned for expenses? 5. What comments have been made in the past by the Executive Director of the Omaha Airport Authority about these high tension wires? 58 59 f 1, 61 62 63 64 _- - 2 Currently, the Eagle Field and adjacent farmland are assessed a $255,110.00 and bring in a tax revenue of $5,706.00 for Washingto t County. In addition, this area generates both federal and st income tax monies. When this airport and adjacent farmland state moves from the realm of private enterprise to the public sector with proposed airport, it appears that all this revenue will be lost. 1. What provisions have been made to ensure that the various levels of government will not lose this income with the move of the airport from private enterprise to that of a public facility? 2. What profits do you forecast from this airport and do ou see it as capable of supporting itself without y the aid of funds from the taxpayers? In reading both phase two and three of the report, it appears that not enough funds have been budgeted for property acquisitions i view of recent real estate transactions in the area n Glydden Bakke) . (sale of land in I. What is the projected budget for each separate piece of property that will need to be acquired for this project? 2. Where will the extra funds come from to make u the difference between budgeted funds for P and actual cost of real estate? Property acquisition Eppley Airport currently has three reliever airports: (1) Council Bluffs; (2) Plattsmouth; and (3) Millard. Recent information in the Omaha World Herald indicates that there is decrease in air traffic at Eppley. a 1. What impact does a decrease in air traffic a its reliever airports? t Eppley have on 2. What indications do you have that the proposed Blair Air ort Will be used or is even needed as a reliever airport Eppley? The Omaha World Herald has identified the major owners of Ea le Field. It is common knowledge that two of these indi.vid p g currently hold positions (one as Chairman of the Omaha Airport Authority and another as Chairman of the Nebraska Aeronautic Boar that have the potential of directly or indirectly influencing h allocation of funds to the proposed airport g e enjoy a windfall from the profits made with the sale of Ea le also This sounds like CONFLICT OF INTEREST. g Field. I. What considerations have been made for this appearance of t conflict of interest? 2. What means will be taken to eliminate this coflict of interest? 65 M 67 68 0 ON 71 RECE December 8, 1992 ' q� C(f'� OF BLAIR To Whom It May Concern: NEBRASKA I regret I will be unable to attend the meeting on December 10 howeve like to voice my opinion on the proposed use of the Eagle Field r, I would a larger and expanded airport. g for the use of join the the large majority of residents of the area in opposing the of the airfield for the proposed use, p g expansion While we have been informed the monies for financing will come from paid by users of aircraft, it is also my understanding it is not to b e fuel tax 100% from these funds. No where is it written that the taxpayers a financed f County are going to contribute tax money for such a proposal I also a t o see where a airport on the south end of the county will benfit Blair.. . fo 1 to see the monies will all be spent in Omaha. This is midpoint between two towns comma will in no way benefit the tax system in the county. nities. It Another concern is the fact one plan was presented and then when o p o out, it was reevaluated and sized down considerably. There is no uaranten came the original proposal will come back in the limelight. g e 'that With the rezoning of the area, land already designated as residential or development, has set the price value on the surrounding land, however, for home not be taken into consideration. With the rezoning, will cone certain that will regulations, which will cause those who are not presently zoned for building and not be able to construct certain buildings, etc. I do not see where to benefit the overall population surrounding the present Eagle Airfie this will will be rezoned, our taxes raised, and inconviences placed on all r . our land Washington County. esidents of There is no valid point in the personal property tax being re plan, for we had property tax in the past; and that was aou raising legislature several years back .... and now reinstated. taken out by the I do hope all residents of the county, not a few from the city considered in this planning... so many tax dollars to benefit so few. An l are not stop with just those surrounding the Eagle Airport, all residents w t does taxed ... while the Washington County Board of Supervisors have no 111 be consulted. t as yet been Sincerely, Mrs.-Joyce Graybill Rt. J12, Box 186 Blair, 'NE 68008 (402) 426 -5543 December 2.1, 1 ftt? Mr. Rod S tor m c:itV :administrator ? 1 k South 16th Street 'hair, Nebraska t Atl()fi ueac 1 Storm: r, C IV D r C . -) _ CITY Gi GLAIR NEBRASKA I am z4 °ruing to y ou i regard to the proposed air ex panslo Field outside of Blair, Nebraska. � Il .f Eagle 1.ty concern i that the expansion of Eagle Field is an economic mist Currently, the airport has minimal use. In addition, it is still ale. much additional use will be generated with the ex pansion unclear hay- nlc,nlellt, 0111 One or two additional planes are set for �Il pro�ec ��i the airport u at the expanded Furthermore. it appears that the traf of smaller planes at E i declining would g . It had been hoped that the expanded airport p Airfield some o the tr aff ic currently going to Eppley Howeve� with h handle decli it is unclear w here the additional traffic f or the t11 Epple -` expanded airport traffic zti"iil be generated Instead, it seems that the ho I e �a Ill be that the exp ensive ��i uiect will somehow Make the air traffic increase. unfortunately, tileilidlity of "u_e will build and t hey will come only w r _ _ the ii lo :•ies. of lz. ci e11 111 the Finally. it is probable that the city of Blair will receive an building increas property taxes to pay. f or and S a - e 111 t g s u p porting the airport. The property tax- Increase would be much to the dismay ol' Blair residents, 1 11()�)e illat illy concerns will be addressed The ecolloillic and )erso c0ricei'11S of the residents i Blair and the rural area lllUgt n be ig nore d. g ed. Very truly yours. N1lary Ann Johnson December 22, 1992 Mr. Rod Storm City Administrator City Hall Blair, NE 68008 I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Washington County regar- ding the proposed reliever airport at the present site of Eagle Field. In 1980 -81, I was a home.owner in Skyline Ranches, a subdivision in Western Douglas County. At that time, the Omaha Airport Authority thought that Western Douglas County should have a reliever airport to handle the perceived heavy increae in private and corporate jet air- craft that would be handled by Eppley. The Omaha Airport Authority and their spokes person, Mr. Ron Grear, told area residents of the vast benefits of both increased corporate relocation and additional tax revenue that the county would derive from the reliever airport being placed adjacent to Elkhorn. After a careful scrutinizing of the facts presented in the report to area residents many mistakes or mistatements were found to have been made in favor of a reliever airport. Area residents told Mr. Grear that if a reliever airport was actually needed, they should look to expanding one of the present airports that were currently in existence, namely the North Omaha Airport and or Flightland Airport. We were told in no uncertain terms that Flightland was not at all acceptable due to its poor location. We were informed that the high voltage overhead transmission lines that are adjacent to this property, the runway proximity to Highway 133 and the residential areas surrounding this airport made it absolutely un- acceptable to ever be considered for a reliever airport. My question is why was Flightland not at all acceptable even for consider- ation as a reliever airport in 1980 and now in 1992 it is the most desi- rable location available when all of the past objections still exist. 73 I would also like to submit the enclosed newspaper articles for your review as I feel they are quite pertinent to the facts at hand. The first article, dated May 29, 1980, by Dr. James Delezal stated that possibly in ten or twenty years there may be a need for a reliever airport if there was substantial growh in private and corporate jet aircraft. A recent article, dated December 19, 1992, by Jeff Gauger, a World Herald Staff Writer, stated that the Omaha Airport Authority Board adopted an incrEased landing fee due to a continuing decrease in total landing weights. It seems that twelve years after the first article, instead of an increase, there has been a substantial decrease in aircraft traffic. I am concerned whether current ownership of Eagle Field by persons that hold positions of influence on the Omaha Airport Authority Board, rather than the actual physical merits of the site and more importantly, the actual needs of a reliever airport are in direct conflict. I submit to you that any relieving that this airport will bring about will only be tax dollars from the residents of Washington County. Sincerely, IM" // 0/24 /�' William N. Hill III WNH/ j h Enc. 2 N TH u 4YP, 9 eWA1 0' o rP ;rNi TIV The writer is an Omaha physician. By James F. Dolezal As a taxpayer, I am concerned about the cur- rent rate of 'inflation. As a pilot and flight in- structor,. I am concerned about the so- called need for a new Omaha ai rport. Our culture is pervaded with a fever which is feeding the current illness of inflation. One symptom of this fever is the tendency by our public servants, whether in a school system, agency, utility or armed forces, to spend all al- lotted monies, especially. before fiscal deadlines, so as not to "lose it," or receive a budget cut the following year. Another symptom is the ten- dency for department heads to attempt to expand their domain, as this seems to make them more important. After all, there is far more prestige to being the head of a large department, rather than the head of a small efficient department, or so it seems. These philosophies seem jap be .4t work in the recent quest by th Om aha Air or j�y,fq - r a new "reliever" airport. The needs cited are, considering the present rate of growth, that Eppley Field will soon be saturated and Millard field is not large enough, not capable of being ex- panded to accommodate business jets. There are approximately 150 airports in the nation that are busier than Eppley field. Many airports handle two or three times as much traf- fic as does Eppley. I have yet to encounter a sig- nificant delay, even at "peak" hours. The proponents wish to acquire land and build an all weather airport which is "just 26 minutes west of 90th and Dodge." They claim this would be popular with business jets, as well as separating them from the airline traffic. There is no law or rule that limits the access to anyairport, byanyaircraft. When business jets come to Omaha, many of these flights \% have business in the downtown area. Who is so foolish as to believe that the flights will land at such a remote airfield, when Eppley is soclose to their destination? Proponents claim that money is available from the aviation trust fund, and that little or no local taxes would be used to finance the purchase and construction. They also say this money is available for the taking, and if your community doesn't get it, some other community will. In my opinion, to create a need to get " federal" money in this fashion is foolhardy, and fuels inflation. The aviation trust fund is a federal fund, but fed from taxes on airline passenger and cargo fares, aviation fuel, and aircraft taxes. To say that local money is not involved in this fund is naive. Proponents "r)so claim that taxes generated from aircraft based at the new airport will make the airport self sufficient. They neglect to realize that very few new aircraft will be purchased, and there will be simply a reapportion rnent of taxes, as aircraft formerly based at Eppley, Millard or North Omaha will change bases, lowering the tax base at those airports. Proponents are projecting far into the future and believe that within'10 or 20 years, that future aircraft movements will be beyond the capacity of Eppley and Millard fields. However, these projections are based on work prior to the fuel shortage, marked increase in fuel prices, and in- terest rates, which have considerably slowed the growth of general aviation. At this time there is little indication there is going to be any major change either in the economy or the general world trade situation. Looking to the future is important, and reliev- er airports are important. There are less expen- sive alternatives to insure good aviation service to the Omaha area. Currently, at Eppley, there is construction of new general aviation facilities which can expand the capacity of that field. Mil- lard field could benefit from a lengthened runway. There is sufficient vacant flat land to the Another P oint of w "'! ELAN northwest that could be used to extend the runway sufficiently to handle jet traffic on a rou- tine basis; 132nd Street is in the way, as it now runs perpendicular to theend of the runway. But it would be far less expensive to put a 200 -toot tunnel under the runway, for 132nd Street, than to acquire land for and build an entirely new air- port. Millard airport could then be made "all weather," with installation of the proper elect ro- nic equipment. Incidentally, it should be less ex- pensive to equip Millard in this fashion, than a new airport, as some of the equipment is already installed at Millard. A new airport would require the same electronic gear that Millard would, to be `,' all weather." North Omaha, a public access airport, is an- other reliever airport. However, North Omaha is privately owned, and receives no public tax sup - port from any level. In fact, as privately owned property, it pays a property tax. Proponents of the airport plan ignore the more than 90 aircraft based at North Omaha, and its ability to act as a reliever airport for small aircraft. They feel, since it is a private airport, that it will eventual1v bb sold and developed and lost as an airport. Hoy tragic. This privately owned airport costs the taxpayers nothing, and in fact pays taxes. What a coup and financial windfall for the taxpayers, if in return for exemption of property tax from public use areas (runways and taxiways), the 'owners agreed to operate the property as an air- port in perpetuity. How much cheaper this would be, than to destroy productive areas and con- struct a new airport. North Omaha, an expanded Millard and the currently expanding Eppley Airfield are more than sufficient to serve this community's needs for many years. ' I believe that I haveproposed a more sensible, less expensive solution to a problem, which will probably.never arise, than the solution proposed by the Omaha Airport Authority. In the event certain aspects of my suggestions prove to be im- practical, I am. certain that similar, less gran- diose solutions can be found. Articles on this page represent differ- ent points of view which are not ''nec- essarily those of The World - Herald. A a W x o � Q O 0 - O �n �o ate, RS U O GO C?� Eg E O E 0 1M c O �-�M L* *§ -m O mt tpL� E O r. r� W l® C m y� 6 N r_ r. O mamm"Oc =N m w m m m- 5 m V1 LL 2aCamDE £ � c E `mm� a� �'� �, v m�� mEv�m 5oai =mor? mo C X L C W cu one O o Wi mro'Q� �h� �. ��. � lQ m t m v Q m .��. ',� () r J-) N a`3'd cpmp� m�_O�m'v O�c� ccpv�vEim 6 Z zc' v .;3o, ,., QQ a�T1 a•- o�OCca a�vm - 00 02= �p 99 0 -goR 0 V) O 'S ( m I aF- O m> Vin. cvoCOm mrnc woQmEO O� b O N : !:1 . 'O � H N 3 6 � Cl .O CV h C •.5 ... .� � '� Q , b c H d Pi td U 4; �O '� u bA y t�j tUt�, OA cd co NO ' p y '� p 'i� O M r O z a O ►-� ® CO Q c cL q L U LA so co � 1 O O It � b O . cd � 'C ~� � c0 r C1. G 'L7 IV cal � O W N O iw� a. � U O 0 O ' fl :z cc C ; Q i V H r� Q a�.l a V ="a 0 .d >, 0 0 H - y -5: Ed y C4 3 : a : E� O . r cn vi r. O 'L7 U c r N � � ti00 c �� O cd • cq 'ti 1.' O O rte, a� O r ? U c ® t tri cC • — • A �, O i N cdb w U 0.E � - C Ca.. W O O •. N • a w A ~ 0 _ S d O O ~ C?� Eg E O E 0 1M c O �-�M L* *§ -m O mt tpL� E O r. r� W l® C m y� 6 N r_ r. O mamm"Oc =N m w m m m- 5 m V1 LL 2aCamDE £ � c E `mm� a� �'� �, v m�� mEv�m 5oai =mor? mo C X L C W cu one O o Wi mro'Q� �h� �. ��. � lQ m t m v Q m .��. ',� () r J-) N a`3'd cpmp� m�_O�m'v O�c� ccpv�vEim 6 Z zc' v .;3o, ,., QQ a�T1 a•- o�OCca a�vm - 00 02= �p 99 0 -goR 0 V) O 'S ( m I aF- O m> Vin. cvoCOm mrnc woQmEO O� b O N : !:1 . 'O � H N 3 6 � Cl .O CV h C •.5 ... .� � '� Q , b c H d Pi td U 4; �O '� u bA y t�j tUt�, OA cd co NO ' p y '� p 'i� O M r O z a O ►-� ® CO Q c cL q L U LA so co � 1 O O It � b O . cd � 'C ~� � c0 r C1. G 'L7 IV cal � O W N O iw� a. � U O 0 O ' fl :z cc C ; Q i V H r� Q a�.l a V ="a 0 .d >, 0 0 H - y -5: Ed y C4 3 : a : E� O . r cn vi r. O 'L7 U c r N � � � b O . cd � 'C ~� � c0 r C1. G 'L7 IV cal � O W N O iw� a. � U O 0 O ' fl :z cc C ; Q i V H r� Q a�.l a V ="a 0 .d >, 0 0 H - y -5: Ed y C4 3 : a : E� O . r cn vi r. O 'L7 U c r N � � ="a 0 .d >, 0 0 H - y -5: Ed y C4 3 : a : E� O . r cn vi r. O 'L7 U c r N � � December 23, 19y2 City Council Members: Iwish to express my feelings on the current issue of expanding Eagle Field. try farm property is adjacent to the current air strip. guy family has had an interest in this farm for nearly 75 years. This land has been used as farm land during the entire time but future development has always been possible to me and to my children. With Omaha growing to the north that prime development was a part of my children "s future. If the airport is enlarged the noise level will make may land impossible to develop. The loss of this option will not only cause a great financial loss for me but also a loss of revenue for the county. The noise level of the current strip has had an affect on my livestock. 1'he damage to the livestock with a higher noise level would be devastating. home of the items you need to consider are: The amount of compensation you will need to pay for future financial losses; The loss of future revinues from development; The loss of poduction due to noise pollution on the the animals. All of the farm land in the area surronding the air strip is in a prime development position. Don't let people with a short —term financial gain goal hide the fact that you would be losing out in the long run. 1 hope this letter will direct your thoughts and concerns to the future and to the landowners. Sincerely -- l S December .?2 1992 Str Rod St ot-w City Rdwinistratoj- Plair, NE 68008 The Norld Herald pt-inted an - Oma Ripport AuthorityPs decision to prohibit jet _ - Nillard airport article it was stated e Owaha igipport Ruthority h ad directe air of an "Executive" - r r r - r .. F ACILITY - DOUGLRS COU r O r r I • i l l ir 11 •, I/ r + r • / IF YOU FEEL T MT THE CONSLALTMTS PROJECTIMVS ON D EBT 75 / l ' • • • pit 11111111111 1111 1 I` / ` r / / r r r r r� r � r • / R ,Qs I mentioned in m comments at the public hearing, there is a petroleum pipe line that passes under the Ea Field site. This a 6 inch pipe line that is currently used to transport Propane Gas- Guestion #4 is.- i I OWN -. 1 I TOV I appreciate your attention to these questions and look forward to reading your answers. Your response can be sent to me: at the following addressz John D. Page RR ZEE' LL63 Plait- NE 68008 l Y Y Z) X;Oh 4 e nd " Page 76 2 December 15, 1992 Jim Ryan, City Councilman City Hall Blair, NE 68008 Dear Mr. Ryan: My husband and I attended the hearing at Blair High on Thursday last, regarding the proposed site for the new Blair Airport. We are the owners of the home at R. R. 2 ,Box 178, Blair, which is directly across Highway 133 opposite Eagle Field. You stated _at the hearing that any questions or statements could be submitted in writing to City Hall before December 23rd and that our concerns would be addressed and included in the type- written transcript from the hearing that will be mailed to all attendees who signed in. Your position as stated is that only one residence would be directly affected due to the proposed construction. We submit that our residence will be affected also; that it will be deemed virtually uninhabitable by the presence of an airport such as was described at that hearing (i.e., potential danger from crashes, air /water pollution, noise levels, traffic flow, air traffic flow, new zoning laws in the surrounding area, etc.) 77 We had decided within the last few years to place our home on the market when my husband reached age 55, in order to take advantage of the one time capital gain tax exemption offered by the Federal Government for those 55 years old and above. Unlike some of the other landowners in the vicinity, basically all our net worth is tied up in our home. Our intent has been to purchase a home in Omaha, invest our profits wisely (rather than reinvest them in our new residence) and allow them to work for us for the next few years. My husband turned 55 years old in December of 1991. We placed our home on the market in July of 1992. Although our home generated much interest, potential buyers have expressed great concern at the prospect of purchasing property with this airport expansion thing a very real possibility. It has been our intent to place our home on the market again in early spring of 1993. Mr. Ryan - 12/15/92 Page Two Our questions are these: Provided this thing goes through, are we now expected to sit back and allow the decisionmakers on this new airport business venture to virtually dictate our future f Must we simply remain where we are, take our losses and forget us. whole thing? Will the value of our property deteriorate t the short term such that no family in their right mind would ur the it at current market value, given the circumstances? If W a chase sell because "quiet people are reluctant to buy a qui.etcou ry residence" adjacent to a busy airport, do future land develo me plansloss call for the purchase of our property? If so, when? P nt And at 78 gain to us. Do we place our future plans on hold in the meantime? It is our contention that, along with in the area, you could and your initial land purchases at an amount equal to the replaceme should) purchase our property the City of Omaha, so that our lives c n al ro eed lot and home in y will need our land eventual) for p as planned. You offer our home for rent until developers of the age plans and could rea it for future development. That way, we both b nefit tide to raze At this point in time, we see our future in the hands of dec of this business venture. If our well -bein g the properly considered as you make your final decision, the wa we see it the investors in this stand to make a big We anticipate your response in written form. profi at our expense. Sincerely, Mrs. Martin G. Kelly COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE BLAIR AIRPORT STUDY These are comments and questions submitted in connection with the public hearing on the proposed general aviation airport for Blair, Nebraska at the Eagle Field site. The hearing was held December 10 1992, at the Blair High School auditorium. Those persons interested in making comments or asking questions were granted 10 minutes each. This was a strategy change made at the last minute by those responsible for running the meet- ing. It was not made known to people until announced in the local paper on December 10, 1992, the very day of the meeting The local newspaper has done an excellent job of making front page announcements of the meeting for several weeks in order that everyone interested would have an opportunity to attend. For example, the announcement dated Nov. 12, 1992, states in part, "Blair City representatives will present a summary of their views concerning the airport and the project's social, economic, and environmental impacts." The people fully expected to hear those views, but for some unexplained reason, it was announced at the meeting that the representatives would be sitting in the audience list- ening, and the people still have not heard their views. Also, the comments and questions offered by the people who spoke were not given the benefit of a response by those repre- sentatives. Rather, it was announced at the meeting and in the Dec. 10 newspaper article that written responses would be sent to everyone who signed in at the meeting, and that everyone had until Dec. 23 to submit a written presentation. In addition to a written response, we have been told answers to all questions and comments will be included in the final environmental assessment of the project. Therefore, due to insufficient time granted at the meeting, and because of the commitment by City representatives, we are submitting this written presentation, some of which was presented verbally, and some of which was not due to time limitations. We fully_ expect written responses to every question asked, both wri tten submit following the meeting as well as those presented verbally at the meeting. In addition, we expect those responses to be included in the final environm a ssessment. Following are our comments and questions: We are owners of land adjacent to Eagle Field in addition to land directly across from Eagle Field on the East side of Highway 133. We have a vested interest in the proposed expansion of Eagle Field since some of our property will be acquired for the expansion, and the balance left will be heavily impacted. We are past part stockholders of the corporation that owned Flightland Airport, the cur- rent site of Eagle Field. We were in that ownership situation for about 22 years. Dur- ing that time, we kept books for the airport operation and dealt extensively with the pilots and aircraft owners who used those facilities and hangered at the field. There- fore, we are familiar with: 1. The type of pilots and aircraft owners who hangered there, and why they hangered there. 2. Capital and labor requirements to keep a field like that operational. 3. What has been considered to be, through the years, airport expansion limitations and /or opportunities. 4. Results of numerous studies, meetings, conversations, views, etc., conducted and expressed through the years by the Omaha Airport Authority, representatives of the City of Blair, and pilots and aircraft owners from Blair and surrounding communities. Although we don't hold ourselves out to be experts on the subject, our participation in the operation of an airport for 22 years, my holding of an instrument rated pilot's license, and of our following with interest the trend of private aviation in our part of the state as well as the rest of the country, allows us to be familiar with the gen- eral trend of that segment of private aviation targeted by the Blair Airport project. There are several factors concerning the approach taken by the City of Blair in conduct- ing the current study, and material presented in the study thus far, that are of great concern to us. We are concerned about the lack of appropriate representation in the groups responsible for the study to ensure that special interest groups will not be favored over taxpayers, land owners, and homeowners who will be directly impacted the most both financially and lifestyle -wise for the rest of their lives. There is also con- cern, after reviewing the study results thus far, whether adequate attempts have been made to validate data presented in the reports as opposed to simply accepting at face value information provided by the various sources. This is of utmost importance, in that these published reports are used to shape public opinion, make major decisions, and acquire public funding for the project. The people directly impacted, and taxpayers in general, deserve the very best effort possible to ensure completeness and accuracy of data published in the study reports, especially since the study thus far has been funded with public funds (90% Federal, 5% State, 5% local). Along these lines, land owners, homeowners, and farmers in the immediate area of the Eagle Field site were not contacted or surveyed in any way, to our knowledge, to obtain their views, feelings, or knowledge they have concerning the area surrounding the pro- posed airport site. People with special interests, i.e., pilots, aircraft owners, etc., were surveyed and interviewed to solicit their views. This includes visiting with the owners of Eagle Field. Based on that over -all approach, we feel it is safe to say that 7 it is at least possible that the results favor certain special interest groups. In ad- dition, as we will point out in our comments, certain data included in the report is questionable as to accuracy, and important information and considerations that should have been made publicly known and used in the final decision making process is missing. t We will express our comments and questions below by category of subject. We would like to make it perfectly clear that we are in no way accusing anyone of wrongdoing, nor are we even insinuating that. Rather, we are trying to identify the climate in which this process is taking place. It is our opinion that this climate is making it very diffi- cult to ensure that everyone's interest is being fairly represented, and that no one special interest group has undue advantage over the broadbase of citizens and taxpayers in general. LAND AQUISITION COSTS The study indicates that the land acquisition costs at the Eagle Field site will be $1,754,000. The committee in charge of the study decided to meet with the current owners of Eagle Field to determine their willingness or unwillingness to sell, and, perhaps, get at least a ball park idea what their price expectations might be. It was announced in the March 8, 1988, Omaha World Herald that Eagle Institute Inc., purchased the airport site now called Eagle Field. The four stockholders were identi- fied. One of those stockholders mentioned in the article is now Chairman of the Omaha Airport Authority. This is the same Authority responsible for hiring Coffman Associates to do consulting work for them. According to an Omaha World Herald article dated Oct. 1 "e 1992, Coffman Associates did study work associated with new federal airport standards as they might apply to the Millard Airport. The article stated that the Authority de- cided to ban corporate jet traffic from the Millard Airport. The Chairman of the Auth- ority was quoted as saying, "Safety is the only thing we care about.." Coffman Associate is the same consulting firm hired by the City of Blair to do their airport study. 81 Another stockholder mentioned in the March 8, 1988, Omaha World Herald article is identi- fied as a board member of the Nebraska Aeronautics Commission in the monthly issues of L -2- l �I i PIREPS a monthly publication of the Nebraska Department of Aeronautics. The person was reportedly the chairman last year. These two people hold positions which potentially: 1. Have access to specific information concerning airport studies. For example, page 6 -2 of Phase III of the Airport Study states, "... the approved program for Blair Airport must be (and has been) coordinated with the Nebraska Depart- ment of Aeronautics (NDA) and the FAA." Page 6 -7 of the Phase III Study states, "There is also potential for the proposed airport to obtain the status of a reliever airport." Traditionally, the Omaha Airport Authority has monitored very closely any airport activity in the area that might result in the development of a reliever airport, and, in fact, has been actively engaged in promoting reliever airports. An Omaha World Herald article dated April 17, 1981, reports that the Omaha Airport Authority "junked its plan to build a reliever airport..." An Omaha Airport Authority report dated November, 1980, and associated with a study for a new general aviation airport, mentions Flightland Airport, the site now called Eagle Field. 2. Become involved with decision making concerning the establishment and /or expan- sion of airports, particularly if the establishment of a reliever airport is possible (reference the above article and reports.) 3. Influence and /or assist in the acquisition of public funding. Page 6 -7 of the Phase III Study for Blair states, "There is also the potential for the proposed airport to obtain the status of a reliever airport." Also, "The funds are dis- tributed under appropriations set by Congress to all airports in the United States which have certified eligibility." Page 6 -8 states, "In recent years FAA and Congress have encouraged development of reliever airports." 4. Offer a possible opportunity of a profit from the sale of Eagle Field. An antic] in the Blair newspaper reported earlier this year that a meeting had been held with Eagle Field owners, and the article stated that they "...want fair market price so they could purchase another site...." IMPORTANT: See FOOTNOTE #2, p.13 Again, we emphasize that we are not accusing anyone of wrongdoing. Rather, we are tryin€ to point out that a climate could exist in which it is very difficult to conduct the study and arrive at a fair, objective, and unbiased decision without the possibility, at least, that certain special interest groups, like those in favor of an expanded airport, have unfair advantages over those who might not be in favor. Even though Eagle Field owners were contacted, no other property owners effected by the project were, to our knowledge. As a result of this approach, we feel that there is a possibility that the following might have resulted: 1. The appearance of a discriminatory approach, favoring some and not others. 2. The committee showed concern about the willingness or unwillingness of some property owners to sell, but not others. 3. The appearance that the committee might possibly be concerned about price expec- tations of some property owners, but not others. 4. The consulting firm could be (and is) missing valuable environmental impact data that should have been part of the study and made public. Questions: 1. Specifically, why were the Eagle Field owners contacted, but not other land own- ers? Couldn't the right of eminent domain be applied to them as equally as to 8 -3- tit t the other landowners? A Blair newspaper article dated July 14, 1992, reported that the Eagle Field owners realized that their property could be condemned to make the airport possible. 2. Specifically, how much of the $1,754,000 is allocated to the Eagle Field owners, and how much to the other property owners? Certainly, a formula or assumption must have been developed to arrive at the figure. 3. Have appraisals been started in preparation of property condemnation? If not, when will the process start? Have you selected an appraisal firm? If so, who? 8 ` FUTURE LIMITATIONS PLACED ON SURROUNDING LAND AT THE EAGLE FIELD SITE The study report points out that privately owned airports cannot control land development in their vicinity, but a publicly owned one'can. The report recommends that the county develop a strong stance regarding future development by restricting land use. Phase III of the report says that a new small subdivision could be a major problem, and that an ordinance should be adopted that would restrict land use that would create electrical interferences with navigational signals. Being an amateur radio operator with an Advance( License, I understand that this could potentially restrict the prattice.of__hobbAes:by people living in the area, as well as cause land values to drop dramatically and never increase in value due to the imposed restrictions that would be anticipated. We hold our land for investment purposes (future financial gain). We fully understand the plight of the farmer when they say it's difficult, if not impossible, to earn an ade- quate return on their investments, since our property is well farmed, and we know what that return is. Therefore, we are moving toward deve)opment, as perhaps many of the other land owners in the area might also be. An example of a recent land sale within a short distance of Eagle Field (it will be dir- ectly across the road from the newly expanded airport) is a plot that sold for $12,500 per acre. The location is in the Glyden Bakke Estates. The property owners in the de- velopment will own their own road, which means they will be responsible for their own snow removal, grading, and other maintenance. There are no improvements such as streets, lighting, sewer, or water. There is a well sunk on the recently purchased property, so it appears building is imminent. The land the airport project would take from us is a short distance from Glyden Bakke Es- tates. Our land is bordered on two sides by well maintained roads, it has an attractive pond on it, as well as a grove of trees. The airport project would acquire the trees and destroy them through removal. We have been advised by professional development ex- pertise that our land has a very desireable contour appropriate for residential develop- ment. This suggests to us that our land is worth more than $12,500 per acre. Yet, close scrutiny of proposed land acquisition costs in the report suggests that anticipa- ted land acquisition costs are low. The study suggests that, if at least Y Beech Barons are attracted to the Eagle Field site, that tax role losses would be offset. We feel that is a false assumption. First, our land, developed, would result in far larger tax role gains than three Beech Barons. Also, property tax is paid on planes now in our state only if they are being depreciated. Further, there is no assurance that property tax on aircraft will not be eliminated en- tirely some day. Finally, Eagle Field already has the capability to accommodate Beech Barons. For example, the Hunte] Company hangered a Beech Baron at Flightland Airport (now Eagle Field) from 1970 through 1976. It has been quite common for Beech Barons to fly in and out of that field at will. We cannot speak for the current owners, but one would assume that they would be more than accommodating to anyone wanting to hanger a Beech Baron there today. L -4- It • In addition, page 12 of the study states, "with an existing 3450 foot runway, Site D is essentially serving the type of aircraft the proposed airport would serve." Eagle Field is Site D. Perhaps one of the greatest concernslandowners would face if the expansion of Eagle Field takes place is the unknown cloud hanging over their heads. That cloud is the potential eventual development of the second major runway originally proposed in Phase II of the study, which called for acquisition of land from 9 landowners (page 4 -12). For some reason, it was decided to scratch the second runway proposal for now. However, the right of eminent domain will remain in the hands of the authorities. They could decide to exercise it in the future and proceed with the second runway. This would seem to hold the land involved in perpetual hostage, in that it is very unlikely anyone would be in- terested in buying it, not knowing how long they might own it. ; Questions: 1. How do you intend to compensate landowners such as us for future financial losses due to lost development opportunities? 2. Has the study factored in future tax role losses due to the elimination of future development of prime property such as ours? What are the numbers if you have? 3. Specifically, why did it,suddenly become apparent that the second major runway, along with land acquisition, road closing, etc., was no longer needed? 4. What assurance can the people be given to guarantee them that additional land will not be condemned in the future for a second runway? 5. What compensation will they be given for the "perpetual cloud" over their propert HIGHWAY SAFETY AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND ACQUISITIONS AND RELATED COSTS The Dec. 3, 1992 Enterprise carries a story of an accident on Highway 133 near the Lake land exit. This is not far from Eagle Field. It was the second accident in three days, even after widening the shoulders to accommodate traffic patterns. Everyone knows that Highway 133 carries a tremendous amount of traffic. If the volume of traffic at the proposed airport comes even close to the study group's projections, the traffic near the airport entrance will be unacceptable. Further, Phase III shows an additional entrance being created from the highway, causing the problem to be even more severe. To correct the situation, it is reasonable to expect a need for an elaborate intersection. (or intersections), including factors such as turn -off lanes, islands, signs, highway widening, and perhaps even lights due to the close proximity of the two entrances shown in Phase III. This will mean additional land acquitions, which means some of our propert will be taken from the East side of the highway. It is not reasonable to expect encroach ment on Eagle property, since hangers, terminal, aprons, parking, taxi -ways, etc., will already be too close for safety. Questions: 1. Where in the study is the traffic problems and related land acquisition costs addressed? This is certainly an environmental impact of significance in anyone's mind who is concerned about safety. 2 What will the additional costs be? & 3. Who will pay for it? WATER QUALITY As mentioned earlier in this document, we have a nice pond on our property which support: a wide variety of wildlife. The existing airport property drains in the direction of -5- lv �t �v the pond. There doesn't seem to be enough activity today to cause a problem. However, the newly constructed runway, with all the grading and reconfiguration of the land con- tour, will put the runway much closer to the pond, and it would appear to create the potential for water contamination in the and p , particularly with the increased amount of activity (jet and other fuel storage and handling, aircraft and vehicular traffic, run- off from wide expanses of concrete, etc.) projected in the study. Questions: 1. Why wasn't this issue addressed in the report? 2. What specifically will be done to ensure the integrity of the water in the pond? TREES There is a nice grove of trees on that portion of our property that would be acquired. Construction of a new runway requires the destruction of those trees. They are well over SO years old and support a variety of wildlife. We have purposely conserved those trees with the intent of never destroying them. In this day and age of environmental concern, every attempt is made to conserve trees, and even encourage the planting of more trees. Yet, we see no mention of this important environmental impact in the report. Questions: 1. What is the environmental impact of removing trees, and why wasn't the issue ad- dressed in the report? 2. If the property is eventually acquired for the project, what monetary value has been placed on the trees? 8S PIPELINE There is a pipeline that runs directly under the Eagle Field property. It appears on the proposed configuration of buildings in Phase III that some will be directly over the pipeline. This has been considered to be an expansion limitation through the years, yet there doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the report. Questions: 1. What is the environmental impact? 2. Will it be moved? 3. If so, what will it cost? 4. If moved, whose property will it be placed on, since this will place further re- strictions on that property? 99 FACILITIES ON OUR P ROPERTY VS. EAGLE FIELD PROPERTY Phase II of the study states that Eagle Field utilizes an on -site water well and septic system. To our knowledge, there are no such facilities on Eagle Field, nor have there ever been. We do have those facilities on our property, though not currently in use. Questions: 1. Could you be confusing our property with theirs? 2. If so, how accurate are your property descriptions? 3. What monetary value have you placed on our property for those items for acquisi- tion? S PROPOSED AIRPORT TO HAVE UNEXPECTED COMPETITION? The current owners of Eagle Field have indicated that, should they sell Eagle Field, they `L v� C1 v iniend to acquire another site for "hobby flying." Hobby flying, as we have always un- derstood it, includes, among other things, the flying of smaller aircraft, such as those the study is relying so heavily on for support of the site, both to prove the project in, and to support the field financially in the future. The matter is being treated lightly by the study group, in that there has been no apparent attempt to determine the specifies of any_proposed plans so their impact could be included in the study. Isn't the very crux of the whole study to determine current and future aviation requirements versus availability of facilities to meet those requirementsT It wouIa seem to be of e utmost importance to evaluate existing and future activities and possibilities of activities involving existing or possible future airports anywhere in the surrounding area. This should be especially true when someone has honestly and openly declared his intent. Is it logical for the City of Blair to promote public funding for an airport project that has the potential of offering direct competition to the new proposedfacility, with- out at least making an in -depth study of the impact? Where will the planes come from to support a competing field if built? Where will it be located? As part owners of Flight - land, it was our experience that many of the aircraft owners hangered there were seeking the very lowest cost facility available. Therefore, every attempt was made to keep rent and fuel prices at the lowest possible levels. We would expect those people to follow the lowest cost provider who can provide the basic services. This raises the question of assumptions used to forecast revenues and number of aircraft hangered at the newly expanded field. Questions: 1. What impact do you project for the possibility of another new airport? 2. Have you even explored that possibility? 3. What do you project the rent per hanger for the first few years of operation, ant how does that compare with current rates at Eagle Field? c 4. In your survey of aircraft owners, did you provide them with estimated hanger rent and fuel prices to assist them in making realistic responses? GOING AGAINST THE TREND IN PRIVATE AVIATION? This project is being undertaken at a time when that segment of private aviation served by an airport such as the one proposed is in a serious decline. This is not a new issue but has been going on for years, with the trend accelerating more recently. Almost daily, reports are available in crediblepublications that indicate this to be the case. Having spent a career of about 34 years with U S West and formerly NWB, I am somewhat familiar with the history of the use of corporate aircraft by those companies. When U S West decided to pull its aircraft out of Omaha, the company was left with a multi- million dollar hanger facility at Eppley Airfield. At the time, it was necessay to dispose of it, there simply was no demand for such a facility in this area. How did the company dispose of the hanger? It gave it away to UNO. At about the same time, the Omaha World Herald ran an article telling of a similar prob- lem the Enron Company was having. The article dated April 30, 1988, tells the whole story. No buyer was in sight at any price, even though their hanger was for sale for about 1/2 of the construction costs. They, of course, had moved their jets out of Omaha The then president of Sky Harbor Air Service was quoted as saying, "Why doesn't the hanger sell? There's a simple explanation. It was designed to hold about 9 corporate airplanes. There isn't a company in town with that large a fleet." The article went on to say that, "the number of business jets based at Eppley continues to decline" Another example is an editorial commentary in the April 20, 1992, issue of Barron's -7- An� B titled "Flying in the Graveyard." The article addresses the well known issue that private aviation is in a serious downtrend in our country. The article is even more vivid when it says, ...American general aviation is dying." There simply aren't any aircraft being manufactured in this country that are traditionally used by pilots who enjoy small air- craft. The article states, "The lack of new aircraft also results in a lack of new pilot: It goes on to say that there are 15% fewer pilots flying in the United States now than there were in 1980. Other segments of aviation are in trouble also. An article in the September 25, 1992, issue of the Wall Street Journal addresses the fact that, "Stunned by continued enormous losses, airlines are stepping up efforts to pressure the nation's airports to scale back or delay expansion projects 'in order to curb costs." The article goes on to say that carriers "will be more aggressive than ever in challenging airport budgets and es- pecially planned capital projects." There are major airlines that have already gone un- der in our country, and some others are operating in bankruptcy. A December 14, 1992, article in Barron's is titled, "Descent of a High Flier." and goes on to tell of Delta Airline's financial difficulties. IMPORTANT: See footnote starting on page 12. An article in the Wall Street Journal dated Dec. 16, 1992, tells of the major cutbacks American companies are making in their air travel, which is heavily impacting hotels, car - rental firms and other industries that are affected by travel. The article states that, "Corporations have learned to do with less - and many are doing it with a lot less travel." An article in The Wall Street Journal dated Dec. 2, 1992, talks about the failed projects involving the attempt to develop all- freight airports. Apparently, small manufacturers find it cheaper to fly their materials in the cheaper belly space of passenger airliners than in other options. The article says that some see the fad of economic development fueled by "pork- barrel" politics. The article says, "some ex- perts worry will pour millions, perhaps billions, of dollars into airports that make lawmakers look good temporarily but make little sense economically." The article states, "Airport building is going to be the S &L scandal of the 1990's, declares Michael J. Boyd, president of Aviation Systems Research, Corp., a consulting firm in Golden, Colo." What does all of this mean to us here in Eastern Nebraska? We feel it means a lot. Just very recently, IBM announced downsizing by the tens of thousands of employees. General Motors the same. By the hour, we hear, see, and read reports that thousands of people are losing their jobs in our country. Companies are cutting back to the bone just to survive, let alone improve profits. We follow the trend closely, and it seems that most credible economists and financial analysts say this is not a temporary trend. Permanent changes are taking place. Noone seems to know exactly where it will lead us. The point of it as it relates to this project is: even though one or two companies say they would base jets or other large aircraft at the Eagle Field site if millions of dollars are spent expanding it, what assurance is there that theX will even be flying airplanes a year from now (or even next week). Another point: even though we have been blessed in our part of the country economically while other sections suffer, the airport expan- sion advocates are relying on air traffic coming in from other parts of the country, where things are not so rosy, and major cutbacks are taking place in travel. Does Washington County want to run the risk of owning a multi - million dollar "white elephant" and stick the taxpayers with additional overhead, along with adversely effectir the lives of the people who live near the airport? Questions: 1. Have these issues been seriously addressed by the committee responsible for the study? If so, what are the results of your findings? -8- V LA \ -1 2. Is Washington County willing to take this kind of risk? 3. If it were announced,today that the roduction of automobiles p t mobiles would be cut down at the same ratio as that of small aircraft manufacuring, would it be prudent to continue to expand parking lots and build more super highways? CONCERN FOR VALIDITY AND COMPLETENESS OF DATA PUBLISHED IN THE STUDY Based on points already mentioned, such as lack of data on pipeline, highway safety, pond, trees, power access, and incorrect data on water well and septic system, we are concerned as to whether a serious attempt has been made to validate data before publishing it as opposed to taking it at face value as provided by the various sources. Question: What validation process of data is conducted to ensure that the people making the final decisions are equipped with the accurate and complete information available? PAST OBJECTIONS ARE TODAY'S ADVANT OR NON- CONCERNS? There have been man discussions in the o Y past concerning Fli Airport as a possible reliever airport for Omaha and /or a site for Blair. In the past, there have been many expansion limitations or other objections raised. We have always felt, and still do, that the existing airport site is good for its current configuration. The objections have generally been raised by various authorities evaluating it for expansion purposes. As early as June, 1971, a meeting was held in Blair sponsored by the Blair Aeros Club. The Executive Director of the Omaha Airport Authority spoke on the projected usage of the new Blair Airport as a reliever field for Eppley Airfield. We attended, as well as certain prominent business people in the community. The Omaha Airport Authority represi2�n- tative spoke stongly against Flightland as a reliever airport. Everyone in Blair seemed to oppose the idea. This was true not only at that very early meeting, but through the succeeding years by the Omaha Airport Authority and individuals in the Blair business community. Here are the main objections raised at various times through the years: 1. The site was too far from Blair. Blair would "lose its identity "and people were not willing to travel that far. 2. The high tension power lines to the West posed significant hazards. 3. The pipeline ran through the property, limiting building sites. 4. The buildings and runway were too close to the highway for safety for a reliever airport. 5. The runway had the wrong headings in relation to prevailing winds in the area, making it a "cross- wind" airport. 6. Housing encroachment was showing signs of developing, causing concern for conflic generating opposition. We heard similar comments when the Omaha Airport Authority was trying to locate a relieve - airport near Elkhorn, Nebr. when some of the objectors to that site suggested that they consider Flightland. Even since then, we have received objections from the Omaha Airport Authority. The Omaha Airport Authority report entitled "Airport Master Plan For A New General Aviation Airport, Supplemental Review of Key Planning Factors," and dated Nov., 1980, states in part, "Flightland and .... airports are privately owned, have expansion constraints, and are subject to encroachment by incompatable land uses." Nothing has basically changed as far as the physical layout of the above objections is concerned except for one item: encroachment has gotten much worse. W0 �G L V land from people, upsetting their lives, and sub stanti a l forever, affecting everything from daily living habitstoYtreiremeg their land values irement plans? A prominent and successful businessman stated he would the site. First of all, one wonders whether a sho like to see a shopping mall at busy an airport that the stud PPing mall would locate next to as III says that even a new resident�alcdevelovmenthough one would when Phase how could it obstacles were overcome, does it really make sense thesBlai Prom? Even if these a problem? support the financing of a project with r business community to ment of their own competition? Public funds that could result in the establish - P Would store owners, relying on retail sales, reall want Y competition on Highway 133, just North of the Douglas Count line? Y It would seem that Blair folks might drive down the highwa mediate area would find it easy to shop there, and it would ten to people in the im - d to for people coming up from the South on Highway 133. I have act as a stopper" representing my company in Chambers, Jr. Lio had considerable experiencE variety of organizations in at least 11 different, citess Clubs, Booster Clubs, and any common goals of strengthening their economic base, improving o of which shared community, and similar objectives I would q Y of life in the support really be surprised if the Blair business people would pport such a venture. Question: Is there strong support from the Blair business commu for the reasons given on their behalf? If so would the berw'he new airport pate in a "town hall meeting" to share their views on the su ll�ng to partici- b CONCLUSION .l � ect . We do appreciate the opportunity to express our views and look do, to your answers to our questions. Thank you. forward, as we know others Submitted by: ^ '4�jp i R y and E. Simmons 'Ja na Simmons 2105 S. 91 St. Omaha, Ne. 68124 Tel. NO.: 402 - 397 -4997 FOOTNOTE This footnote references a�� paragraph on page 8 under the heading of "Going Against The Trend In Private Aviation. Even as this document is being finalized, an article pears in the Omaha World Herald dated December 19, 1992. It reports that the Omaha port Authority is increasing its landing fees 12.2%. The article says that ber "questioned the increase, saying it might be driven by airport authorit Y s in recent years..." The authority's executive director was reported to say l "the i crease was driven by a continuing decrease in total annual landing weight." He is quo- ted as saying, in part, "the reduction is the result of reduced airline flight sche- dules...." The chairman of the board was reportedly not in attendance. It would seem that the airline industry and private aviation problems have trul y arrived in the Omaha area. This demonstrates on a very current basis that the roblems of n out in this document do not exclude our own area, and that over spending and overly o -12- L timistic forecasts of airport traffic activity can result in dramatic increases in rates .% charged users of airports, budget deficits, and the potential need for increased support from public funds (ultimately the taxpayer) One might conclude from reading articles in credible publications for the last few years concerning aviation trends that the policy of many airport authorities in our country - of spending, spending, spending, while airport traffic and usage is falli f al li ng, falling, is finally coming home to roost Again referencing the Comment of the president of Aviation Systems Research, Corp., a con- sulting firm in Colo., as reported in the Wall Street Journal that "airport building is going to be the S &L scandal of the 1990's," it looks like he might be hitting the nail right on the head. Does Washington County want to be part of that problem? FOOTNOTE #2: Reference a paragraph #4 on page 3 Phase III of the Study shows that $330,000 will be paid to the owners of Eagle Field for existing "T- Hanger Aquisition." The March 8, 1988, issue of the Omaha World Herald re- ported that Eagle Institute, Inc., "paid $170,000 for Flightland Field." This included runway, taxiway, buildings, hangers, etc. In all the years we were part stockholders of the corporation that owned Flightland Airport, we were never able to find a willing, pru- dent investor willing to pay $330,000 for the whole property, let alone just for the buildings. Questions: 1. Especially since it has been reported that the Eagle Field owners have expressed the idea that they are really not interested in selling, why is the City of Blai: so anxious to thrust upon reluctant sellers, no matter who they are,.more money (public funds) than, perhaps a willing, prudent investor might pay? 2. Has there been a business study conducted by someone, such as an investment banking firm, to determine what a willing, prudent investor might pay for the property? J :3. If so, who was the person or firm, and what were the results? -13- v 2l 1 L l r LOOKING GLASS MILLS PROPERTY OWNLRS ASSN., INC. 520 N. 80" STREET OMAHA, NE 68114 PHONE 3911059 rUL I 12 - 10 - 92 03:30PM FROM MAIL BOXES ETC,4lb97 0 ml 1 A4 O/U 0 p I esl PA C E D l 01, jt tit CL - Al �� ,: L A / �lb bl ell Le I PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS RESPONSE HEARING , t ' P. t • the survey used aviation facilit placed too much emphasis on the needs and desires to determine the need for an improved of people outside of Blair and is i i • • / County. Surveys were sent to all registered aircraft owners in portions of surrounding counties to help determine the potential service area for the airport. The information was also useful in estimating the basing potential for each candidate airport site. Airport 2. P. 10: There are plans by both the Council Bluffs Municipal and Plattsmouth Airport, both of which are alread classified as • . airports, • upgrade their i • •' improvements adversely affect the abilit of "• • • is draw Council Bluffs Airport is on the far east side of the metropolitan area and Plattsmouth is on the far south side. These two airports are too far away from the Blair and north Omaha to have any adverse affect on the proposed airport's ability to draw airplanes. Aside • 11 these regulator restrictions, growth because few people would be willing to build a new home near an i • slow airport with the kind of activit projected at Eagle Field ... Given the projected noise exposure levels, around the existing airport, there is no justification for radically restricting residential development around the proposed airport. The present large lot zoning (two acre minimum lot size) will prevent dense residential development around the airport. By comparison, the long term activity projections for the proposed airport are just more than half the current activity at Millard Airport. The existence of Millard Airport has done little to slow nearby residential development at much higher densities than can occur around Eagle Field. Washington County Sheriff's Increased veh will generate , • . • , work for i dangerous road... It will take Department. Highway 3 is already and equipment to meet the need for increased patrol activitie additional funding to pay for Personnel 0 P. 12: Along with the increased activit for the volunteerflire at Eagle Field will come ; need departments add eqm*pment to fight aviation fuel fires. There will also be a need that serve this area to upgrade for additional training for the members of these departments, The primary 'funding source for the proposed development is the airport development programs of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Nebraska Department of Aeronautics ( A). These programs are funded through taxes on aviation users. The FAA program will fund 90 percent of eligible development items (100 percent on certain navigational aids), and the NDA program will fund half of the remaining 10 percent. This leaves five percent to be funded by the local sponsor. Items not eligible are hangars, buildings, fuel facilities, and parking lots. These are constructed on an as needed basis, with leases developed with the renter that amortize the cost of construction as well as provide additional revenues toward airfield and operating costs. OA some type of interchang will need 1 be 1 c o n structed ' entran r liquid petroleum Pipeline that passes under the present facl • report failed Field. Eagle 0 12. P. 14: It also fails to mention the existence of a high voltage overhead transmission line north of the project. The proximity of this line to Eagle Field was cause for Eppley Field representatives to actively campaign against its development as a reliever facility in the past. The overhead transmission line runs north- south, west of the airport. At its closest point it is approximately one -half mile from the runway and is further away on the centerline approach to Runway 13. The transmission line is well below the F.A.R. Part 77 approach surface and horizontal surface criteria. It is assumed that Mr. Page is referring to the General Aviation Reliever Airport study conducted by the Omaha Airport Authority in 1980. At that time the Airport Authority was looking for a site that could accommodate the full range of business jets, a precision instrument landing system, a parallel runway and a crosswind runway. That airport site would have required 1,100 to 1,400 acres compared to 234 acres for the airport currently proposed. The approach slopes required were 50:1 compared to 20 :1 for the airport currently proposed. The Eagle Field would never to be able to accommodate the type of facility proposed in the 1980 study. However, it can be improved to very adequately meet the needs determined in the current Blair Airport Feasibility Study. 13. P. 14: The sound from current aircraft operations is perceptible by many residents Iin the area, including those who live in Lakeland Estatns. 14. P. 14: Increased activity at Eagle Fiel will / • : se traffic • / the highway. The potential for more vehicle accidents accompanying personal injury or possible loss of life is of great concern to the people 1. i n this area Please refer to response #4 and V. The documentation submitted by Mr. Page is included with other written submittals from the public hearing. The wetlands described in this documentation involve 0.7 acres on the farm site owned by Martin Hoer. As shown on Exhibit H in the environmental assessment, Mr. Hoer's property is located south of the airport site. � , , , , • • The present airport that / now they have noticed / s r when the planes take off or when they land, have a dramatic effect on t he i r li 18. P. 17: . . . a lot of people are making their homes and are expanding there, and this particular tract would suit itself for development purposes. Of course, if the airport is allowed to increase the way it is pr jected, that is going to affect their ability to develop that land Please refer to responses #3 and 13. R • • 1 1 • 1 right 19. - P.19and2O: If you buy that land, I hope you realize, you are buying all those trees at the going rate per foot that rm getting for Christmas trees now All property would be acquired at the appraised fair market value. The appraisal process required by the FAA requires an appraisal and a review appraisal be prepared by certified real estate appraisers. The appraisals would take into account items such as trees and other improvements that add value to the property. The property owner can also submit his/her own appraisal. No property values are being established by this environmental assessment or the Airport Feasibility Study. • r1 1 101W411 1 101111W IAW For ,111' reason, the t comm decided 1 meet with the owners of Eagle Field to determine their willingness to sell, and perhaps, their price expectations. Because Eagle Field is an existing airport, and would have an effect on whatever site was selected, members of the airport committee met with members of the Eagle Field ownership to discuss the possibilities. Even if Site B or Site C were selected as the preferred site, discussions would have been held with the Eagle Field ownership regarding their future plans, possible airspace conflicts, etc. Coffman Associates has worked on several airport planning projects for the Omaha Airport Authority over the last 14 years. ]wring that same period Coffman Associates has also completed planning projects for the Council Bluffs and Plattsmouth Municipal Airports as well as over 140 other airports throughout the nation. During that period the person in question by Mr. Si mmons • on the Authority board on ' 1 separate occasions. Coffman Associates 1 1 • with person question has been two presen a t regu scheduled, i • open, Authority Board meetings regarding • 1 the Authority airports. With regards to personal profit from the transaction, any acquisition with the use of federal funds must be based upon the appraised, fair market value of the property. 22. P. 23: 1 would like to know ... why you met with the Eagle Fiel For the purposes of this planning study, cost estimates have not been prepared on an individual owner basis. Wherefore no breakdown has been developed. As indicated in responses #19 and #20, appraisals will be prepared to determine the fair market value of any land acquisition. Appraisals will be prepared after the site is approved and at the time an application for federal funding is submitted. For planning purposes, land values were estimated between $2,500 and $4,500 per acre. Total land costs were estimated at $816,500. Additional value for improvements was estimated at $720,000. Potential relocation costs were estimated at $12,000. An additional $205,500 was added to cover surveys, appraisals, legal fees, and contingencies. Again, these are not appraisals, and are not intended to be used for negotiations. Actual acquisition costs will be based upon appraised fair market values. 24. P. 24 and 25: So we've been keeping track of development in this area, / • one • • one development, believe . called w e Gylden Bakke Estates . . . A lot recently sold there for the equivalent of $12,500 per acre ... one would lead to believe that our property has 1 • '" ! • l east as much or more than 1 Ii • l ots in this It 1 • be noted / Gylden Bakke / approved, • S development preparation : • road improvements place. Regardless, fair market appraisals will be the basis of acquisition for any property associated with the proposed airport. 11 R 26: • /' ' for i fact that Beech Barons ci 1 and 1 1 1 1 i / do in and out of there at will with no restrictions. So I guess we just have 1 wonder why perhaps millions of dollars 1 1 have L • be spent 1' • 1 / i 1 aircraft i • i' already / L 26. P. 26: How do you intend to compensate landowners such as_!ne fo future financial / _ due to loss of development / / / 1 • Have you factored in the future tax roll losses caused by eliminatino. the development of prime property such as ours? I Property acquisition will be based upon the appraised fair market value of the property at the time the property is acquired. Impacts to the tax rolls are outlined in the Environmental Assessment under the social impacts section. all k now / . Highway traffic operations is even close, the traffic problem at the Eagle's entrance will be absolutely unacceptable. 28. P. 27: 1 have three questions rd like to have answered concerning that subject... where • this / do you address '• / what / / you • the / / / • i cost to be who's 1 g oing to pay / 29. P. 27 and 28: 1 don't know whether you are familiar with the fact that we have a pond on our property... I do not see that addressed Iin the stud and I would like to know specifically what you intend to do to ensure the water quality in my pond. The pond is depicted on both Exhibit B and Exhibit H in the Environmental Assessment. As indicated in the 'Water Quality section of the Environmental Assessment, grading and drainage design will include features to control the release of runoff from the site. This will be coordinated through the NPDES permitting process as well as consultation with Washington County and the Soil Conservation Service to mitigate any potential impacts downstream (including Mr. Simmons pond). De -icing on the airfield pavements will be handled by mechanical means and sanding with no use of chemical de -icing agents. 30. P. 29: My question concerning power access: Would you have acquire more land than the study currently indicates to provide for different power entrance 0 32. P. 29 and 30: There is currently a pipeline that runs directly under the : • • 1', ; • will 1 ► pipeline / moved? ► / : / r environmental impact and whose property will it be on? ... what's thz cost?. what l'1 :': ions will put on those property owners. As indicated in response 11, the six-inch pipeline would be relocated around the terminal facilities, but would be maintained within the airport property. Estimated costs are $65,000 and are included within the site preparation costs. 33. P. 30: Page 4-10 of Phase 11 of your report states that Eagle Field utilizes an on-site water well and septic system. To my knowledge, neither of those facilities have ever been, nor are they today, on Eagle • •, The draft Phase II report misstated that a well and septic system were located on site. This was corrected for the draft Environmental Assessment which discusses that sewage requirements would be handled by developing a septic tank and lateral field system. A well would also be developed for the airport's domestic water needs. These have not been confused with any systems located on Mr. Simmons property which is located on the opposite side of the airfield from the terminal facilities. 34. P. 30: There is a map which is next to page 12, and it shows a rectangular shaded : ' : and 1 cannot determine 1 "11 that what that 1 • 1 • 1' have that : 1 • ' 1 The map referred to is Exhibit H. The shaded area near the south end of Mr. Simmons property refers to the pond he discussed earlier in his public hearing remarks. question was to when / the figures would 1 out, and answer was December Ist ... we have not received anything. Ms. Simmons is apparently referring to the Phase III report which was completed and delivered 1 the City of Blair in mid 36. P. 33: ... why don% you take the existing facility that you've got an take your crosswind runway and expand it and make yourself a nicl Gn long runway that you could utilize and bring in just about any type of plane 1 you wanted 1 M r. Palmer is essentially describing what was evaluated as Site A in the Airport Feasibility Study. From an engineering standpoint, the expansion of the current Blair Airport offered some advantages. However, from an environmental perspective, this alternative rated the lowest of all four candidate sites. The development would require the relocation of at least seven residences. The runway development would also extend into the former territorial town of Cuming City, which is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Blair Airport site and Site B were closest to the primary feeding patterns of migratory waterfowl associated with the DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, the Eagle Field site could be developed for relatively the same costs as the Blair Airport. However, the Eagle Field site would have a higher basing potential thus would have a higher revenue potential for paying local development and operating costs. The proposed development at Eagle Field would also better consolidate aviation facilities in the county for a more efficient operation. 1 d 1 do wha r 11 . f 1 move down +;. 1 % t he bot A site in the Missouri River bottoms north of Blair was selected in a previous study nearly twenty years ago. However, that site was never developed because of several environmental problems, including the conflicts with the Desoto National Wildlife Refuge. R ou g h l y 2 00 acres o f arm l and .i 1' out of pr o d uc ti on . the owner in private hands was getting a modest $50-an-acre re . . . •. w ould amount 1 1 +' �' ' 1 1 would 1 / 1 any i ncome " ... because the City of Blair wouldn!t pay any imcome tax. 39. P. 36: ... the City of Blair only has nine airplanes at their existing airport that can handle that kind of aviation. It looks like if they put $5 million / :! new w r 1 1 1 are only going 1 • • one '• 1 two planes from Washington County... With a 2,600 foot by 50 foot wide runway, the Blair Airport is adequate for only single- engine aircraft and a few of the smallest twin - engine aircraft. It is marginally adequate at that because it does not meet many of the FAA safety design standards. It also does not have instrument approach capabilities. The primary purpose for a community to sponsor an airport is the economic development advantages it can bring. To adequately serve businesses, the airport must be able to accommodate the type of aircraft used by the corporations. These include twin engine piston and turboprop aircraft. To make the airport more reliable for businesses, it should have instrument approach capabilities. Finally, a business has a responsibility to its employees or clients that it transports to operate into a safe airport. From any of these perspectives the present Blair Airport offers very little. 40. P. • / of the people that A • use the airport 1 • be / ill' Douglas County, r • . • the residents of ; . • • / • County supplementing all of the people from Douglas County that would be using Washington Countys airport. M services that can be offered at the airport. This will in turn increase airport employment • l l eases / be paid by b usinesses on airport. In effect, the aircraft users from Douglas County will supplement the airport in Washington County by increasing the revenue stream for the airport, thereby increasing the potential for the airport to pay for itself. 41. P. 36 and 37: Another factor with what it would cost to run the airport would be the mowing and the snow removal. Also the cost of insurance ... I have seen turboprops land at Eagle Field. I question why we have to make a lot longer runway to handle, if they can already land there. Operating costs (mowing, snow removal, insurance, etc.) for the airport have been considered in Financial Plan Chapter of the Airport Relocation Feasibility Study. Obviously the more aircraft the airport serves the more income it will have available to pay these costs. Concerning the runway capabilities, please refer to responses #25 and 36. As indicated in Phase III of the Airport Feasibility Study, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Nebraska Department of Aeronautics (NDA) have programs designed to assist airport development. The FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides 90 percent funding on eligible items such as land acquisition, runways, taxiways, aprons, and airfield lighting. The NDA can provide up to an additional five percent on these projects as well as assist in the administration of the project development. In addition, the FAA can completely install and maintain navigational aids such as runway identifier lights REIL's and visual glide path indicators (VASI or PAPI's) with no cost to the local sponsor. The NDA has other programs such as the installation of nondirectional beacons which minimize the cost to the sponsor. Hangar costs are not eligible for federal funding because they are considered as revenue - producing. In other words, if hangars are to be constructed by the sponsor, they would be leased to tenants at a rate that would recoup the costs of construction and financing as well as provide additional income towards operating expenses of the airport. However, the NDA also has a program to 13 assist hangar development. loan program can provide no- interest 3. P. 3 6: ... what's going to happen to the existing airport if this all happens? there any I 1 of selling and ''1 they do sell at market The existing Blair Airport would be closed if the proposed airport is developed. At that time, the City could consider selling the site and using the proceeds to reduce debt service to the benefit of the new airport. .. 44. P. 39: So fire and rescue are a big thing. The highway has been mentioned, which I think is an important issue. Please refer to responses #4, 5, V, and #27. 1 ! 4 2 1 LH ' ' 42: The other thing g / o me about this looks Blair Chamber of Commerce and the Blair City Council picked the site and then proceeded '1 call upon this airport Coffman, 1o+ approve the site. Coffman Associates was selected through a very detailed selection process that followed t A. consultant prepared scope of work was submitted and approved by the City, the NDA, and the FAA. The study was prepared systematically with no preconceived notions about a preferred site. 410. P. 43: 1 want to point out what I think area couple of fallacies in th Coffman report ... On Page 13 under social economic characteristi 1h the are showing the percentage growth in Washington Count historically has 1 1 the population i 1• i n Douglas Count and yet the figures don't bear that out. M, 44: Then you got up above.that and 1 you say a score of 80 or above indicates the site has a number of distinct advantages and would be an excellent location for an airport. Now the only problem is that none of your sites come up to 80, so I think that would mean we gotta chuck them all, forget this idea. The rating analysis is utilized to provide a basic examination of the various factors that are involved in airport site selection. While a rating above 80 would indicate a site that would be almost ideal, very seldom is a site found that can achieve that high of a rating. A rating above 50 generally indicates that the site would be suitable. The candidate sites in Washington County all had rating totals above 60. The rating system should not and has not been utilized as the sole criteria in the site evaluations. 49. P. 45: My second concern has to do with the water table impact an percolation 1 any 1 • 1 .. • ' from the area into the current water * 1 and /: / . proper well 1 ('. / f': been 1. / ':1 " ' 1 for -: impact on the 1 c I current landowners and potential draining 1 1 • 9 supply? An DES permit will be required for approval of all stormater drainage plans at the design phase of the project. Well depths would have to meet all state and county requirements. Water usage requirements on a general aviation airport are small (typically on the order of 10 gallons per day per based aircraft). This would equate to less than 1,000 gallons per day in the ER TO. P. 45: My concern about the effluent with regard to drainage, it may fit current FAA and environmental considerations, but will it fit the particular topography and the depth of the local water table that will be utilized for this particular site. Please refer to responses # 9 and 29. 51. P. 46: ... there have been projections of local land escalating in value, at least 20 percent in that area. Will that still be properly considered or potential income for those 1 compensation of that property when it is encroached upon? Please refer to responses # 19 and # 26. attached The written ents include a letter dated ! • mb 1 1992 f rom reaffirming the President of the Looking Glass Hills Property Owners Association, Inc. • • • for ' development of Field. S3. P. 46: Are you going to buy our home and relocate us, because I can!t pursue happiness in that loud noise. * 0 The aircraft noise exposure levels in the Looking Glass Hills area will be less than 47 DNL based upon the activity projected for the year 2011. This noise exposure level indicates very minimal impacts. The noise exposure generated by Highway 133 is higher on Looking Glass Hills than the exposure generated by aircraft. Its lip � , ' 58. What have the owners of the pipeline said about this situation and how does this comply with current guidelines regarding building, etc. • . the pipeline The pipeline currently runs beneath the runway and taidway of Eagle Field and just north of the T- hangars. Discussions with Williams Brothers confirmed that no buildings should be constructed over the pipeline. 59. Will the pipeline have to be moved, and if so, who will carry the fi nancial burden t' mo The pipeline is planned to be moved to the south of the proposed T- hangars but still within airport property. The costs for relocating the pipeline have been included in site preparation costs. The relocation will be eligible for FAA and NDA funding at 95 percent of the total costs. There should be no impact to the safety of nearby residents. Rather, the proposed airport will enhance safety because it provides for safety areas and clearance buffers that are not currently present. 11. "at factor will these high tension wires play in the approach and/or flight patterns at the proposed general aviation facility? The transmission lines will not be a significant factor because they are below the approach slope requirements for the runway. 22. What impact on the public safet do y ou foresee as a result of this combination of high tension wires and larger aircraft utili2ing the planned Since the transmission lines are below the approach surfaces, they will not be a safety factor. 63. Will the high tension wires have to be moved, and if so, who will s houlder . • e financial burden 1 / move W hat contingency • : 1 exist t o cover such unplanned expenses The transmission lines will not have to be moved. However, the cost estimates in Phase III include an additional ten percent to cover contingencies. 64. What comments have been made in the past the Director of . Omaha Airport Authority about / ' . " high tension wires? Any comments that may have been made in the past were likely attributed to the Omaha Airport Authority's reliever airport study. That study was looking for a site that would accommodate a 6,200 -foot long primary runway with precision approach capability, a parallel runway, and a crosswind runway. That airport would have served the full range of business jets weighing up to 70,000 pounds. There is no question that the transmission lines and several other factors would have made Eagle Field an impractical site for a facility of that size. However, a much smaller facility with just one 4,100 foot runway designed to serve aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pound is very feasible on the same site. hat provisions have been made -' o ensure that the 1 of government will not lose this income With the move of the airport from private enterprise 1 that of : public facility? As indicated in the Environmental Assessment, the assessed value of the property to be taken off the tax rolls is 0.044 percent of the County's assessed value. Most of the taxes are county -wide. The next highest total is $1,752 in the Wranch School District. Township #1 would lose $100 and Township #7 would lose $97. The three fire districts affected would lose a total of $96 between them. Also please refer to response #38. 66. What profits do you forecast from this airport and do you see it as capable of supporting itself without : 1 of f unds 1 'ill / taxpayers? The projected cash flow is included in the Financial Plan chapter of the Airport Relocation Feasibility Study. There is potential for the airport to support itself. Ninety-five percent of the acquisition costs will funded be through FAA and NDA programs. They will be based upon appraised fair market values for each prope reli 69. What impact does a decrease in air traffic at Eppley have on its a Decreases in traffic at Eppley Airfield have little effect on its reliever airports, because each reliever airport has developed its traffic based upon general aviation activity in its portion of the metropolitan area. 70. What indications do you have that a proposed Blair Airport wi1l be • • or / nee ded as a reliever airport f• r Epp The lack of a publicly -owned airport on the north side of the metropolitan area, and the indications from the aircraft owners survey that the proposed airport has the potential to attract over 50 based aircraft provides the potential for the airport to be classified as a reliever airport. Regardless of future reliever status, the airport would still be eligible for funding as a general aviation airport. W h a t • / • ' .', • • have ' • . . / Ili • • • f or / appearance o conf of interest? What means will be taken to eliminate this conflict of i ntere st? Please refer to response #20 and #21. 72. Why will there not be a public hearing on the Phase III report? Whz�tp measures will be taken to allow the general public to voice concerns a bout this phase of • A public hearing is required on the Environmental Assessment. However, all meetings of the Blair Airport Committee and the Blair City Council are open to the public. IN 73. My question is why was Flightland not at all acceptable even for co nsideration - a reliever airpo in 1980 and now in 19 most desirable location available when all of the past objections still Please refer to response '12. •. your Consultant : .,, into • • ' : • /', •:.." impact : new ' in western Douglas County would have on Eagle Field's ability to draw and keep aircraft based at that site? 75. Are the dollars projected for debt service realistic? If you feel that the consultants projections on debt service dollars are accurate, would you provide me with the detailed analysis that shows why they are accurate and my assumptions are incorrect? The text just below Table 6D on Page 6 -13 of the Phase III report outlines all the assumptions made to calculate debt service on the remaining local share of costs. It is pointed out there that an administration building and fuel farm was assumed to be financed at seven percent interest for 15 years. The other airfield and parldng development would be financed at seven percent over twenty years. Approximately half the cost of T- hangar acquisition and development would be financed at no interest through the NDA Hangar Loan Program, while the remainder would be financed over twenty years at seven percent interest. 76. Has your consultant factored in the cost to relocate this pipeline, outside of 1 e proposed air• r property, part of development cost of • project? The pipeline not • be. • • • • the airport property. .a. refer 1 response and W =4 , w` We submit our residence will , • affected : o that virtually uninhabitable by the presence of the airport such as described at the hearing (i.e. potential danger from crashes, air/water pollution, noise levels, trafflic flow, air traffic flow, new zoning laws in the surrounding area, etc.). As Mrs. Kelly knows, she lives adjacent to the existing airport. All the aspects she brings up have been those raised by speakers at the public hearing. The following is in regard to each area of concern: Airl water pollution - As indicated in response 56, the activity levels for an airport of this type will not be sufficient to have any impact on air pollution. In addition, please refer to responses #9, #29, and #45. • Noise levels - Aircraft noise exposure levels on Mrs. Kelly's property will be less than 50 DNL even in the year 2011. Existing traffic on Highway 133 creates higher noise exposure levels on Mrs. Kelly's property than the airport does or will. Traffic flow - Please refer to responses 4, #7, and #27. New zoning laws in the surrounding area - Other than height zoning, the present zoning around the airport is adequate if enforced. 78. Will the value of our property deteriorate in the short term such that no family in their right mind would purchase it at current market Given the type, size, and activity of the proposed airport, history at similar facilities has indicated that market values of surrounding property is not impacted by the airport, particularly below 65 DNL. The 60 DNL will remain on airport property at the proposed airport. W 79. People with special interests, i.e., pilots, aircraft owners, etc. were surveyed and interviewed to solicit their views. This includes visiting with the owners of Eagle Field. Based on that overall approach, we feel it is safe to say that it is at least po ssi b l e t the :: .' f 1 • . i nt er es t g 8 0. One o t he `I 1/ 1 �hairman of the Omaha Airport Authorit This is the same Authorit responsible for hiring Coffman Associates to do consulting work for t hem.. - . C of f m a n • w 1 ' : " ► i s the !/ consu fir h 1 1 w Cit o B 1 do their stud Please refer to response 21. Please refer to response 23. 83. Have a ppra i sa l s been starte i n p o prop c ondemnation ? not • 1 1 the pro s Have y ou 1; an appraisal firm .9 If so, who? I No appraisals have been started, and will not begin until the site is approved, and an application for federal funds is submitted. At that time an appraiser would be hired. The appraiser's estimates would then be subject to review by a second appraiser. 23 86. What assurance can the people be given to guarantee them that additional land will not be condemned in the future for a second runway? What compensation will they be given for the "perpetual cloud'over their property? There are no plans to develop a second runway. Wind analysis along with projected activity does not indicate the need to even plan for a second runway. 87. Where in the study is the traffic problems and related land acquisition costs addressed? This is certainly an environmental impact of significance in anyone's mind who is concerned about safety. What will the additional costs be .9 Who will pay for it? Please refer to responses 4, 7, #27, 28. Please refer to responses #9 and 27. M 89. "at is the environmental impact of removing trees, and why wasn!t the issue addressed 1 / • report? 1 property eventually acquired for the project, what monetary value has been placed on the trees? Please refer to response #31. 90. There is a pipeline that runs directly under the Eagle Field property . . . What is the environmental impact? Will it be moved? If so, what is the cost? If moved, whose property will it be placed on, since this will place further restrictions on that property? Please refer to responses #11 and #32. Consideration was given in the determination of basing potential that not all the aircraft currently located at Eagle Field would elect to remain there if it became a publicly -owned and improved airport. Other factors to be considered are that no private airport in the vicinity can be expected to provide a 4,100 foot runway and nonprecision approach capability. In fact, there is no guarantee that another private airport would be developed, or that other private airports will even remain open to the public in the long term future. 93. What do you project the rent per hangar for the first few years of operation, and how does that compare with current rates at Eagle Field? In your survey of aircraft owners, did you provide them with estimated hangar rent and fuel prices to assist them in making realistic • , • T- hangars were estimated within a range of $30 to $110 per month. The existing T- hangars would likely have the lower rates, while new T- hangars would be higher. Rates for T- hangars would be set based upon 1) the appraised value of the existing T- hangars, and 2) the cost of construction of any new T- hangars. Therefore, if the appraised value of the existing T- W hangars lower. • 1 . would hold true for w hangar Since the surveys were conducted at the initiation of the study, no estimates of hangar, rents or fuel prices had been de. Regardless, fuel prices and hangar rents can be expected to be in line with other rates in the metropolitan area. The Airport Feasibility Study considered the potential for general aviation in the activity forecasts. Exhibit 2A in that report reflects how general aviation shipments dropped dramatically in the early 1080's and continue at lower levels today. The report also notes that the gains in manufacturing are occurring in business - oriented aircraft. The proposed airport would provide a 4,100 -foot runway capable of more safely and adequately accommodating general aviation propeller aircraft used by businesses. Further development of hangars, apron, parking, etc. beyond the initial proposed development would occur only as actual demand required. Many of the quotes the writer alludes to in the lead -in to the questions regard various discussions from debates of the need for large, billion - dollar mega - airports. The proposed airport in Washington County involves a single 4,100 foot runway for general aviation aircraft and can hardly be compared to those large air carrier facilities with six or more runways up to 12,000 feet long capable of accommodating 850,000 pound jumbo jets. The proposed airport is not planned or designed to ever become a major air carrier facility. Rather, it is designed to serve the basic general aviation needs of Blair and Washington County. 95. What validation process of data is conducted to ensure that the peop, making final decisions are equipped with the most accurate an complete infoCI / available? Besides being subject to public review as experienced by the public hearing as well as the previous public information meetings, the study is reviewed by the airport committee, the FAA, and NDA. W 96. Taking the above items one by one, how can they be advantages, or at least items of non-concern, today when they were considered important objections Fi the past? there e i possibility / w decision, or at least a strong bias, developed prior to the study, and now these items are of no consequence? The site was too far from Blair. Blair would lose its "identity" and people were not willing to travel that far. The pilot survey indicated that 36 percent of the users would be willing travel at least six to ten miles to an airport. However, less than half are willing to travel more than 15 miles. It also became evident from the surveys that the airport could serve more users if located south of Blair. The high tension power lines to the west posed significant hazards. Please refer to response #12. The pipeline ran through the property, limiting building sites. Please refer to responses #11 and 3. The buildings and runway were too close to the highway for safety for a airp reliever runway The ad the wrong • • winds area making it a crosswind runwa M Housing encroachnwnt was showing signs ofdeveloping, causing concern for conflicts generating The smaller airport with significantly less operations than projected in the past indicates compatibility with the surrounding area provided that present zoning is maintained. 97. Especially since it has been reported that the Eagle Field owners havi expressed the idea that they are really not interested in selling, wh is the of Blair 1anxious 1 thrust upon reluctant • no matter who they are, more money (public funds) than, perhaps willing, A 1•/ investor might The interests of the City of Blair or any public sponsor in pursuing an airport facility is to ensure adequate, safe facilities to benefit and enhance its present business and future economic development. Existing facilities in the area fall short of adequately meeting that need. The proposed action would essentially reduce the number of airports in the county by consolidating two existing facilities into one improved location. 1 • : - there been : business study conducted by someone, such as investment 1 f 1 • flirm, to determine , ; 1 • prude , investor might pay for the property? If so, who was the person or and what were the results? • ! !, ! 1 . ! 99. As part of the expansion plan, thereis a proposed convenience sto and possibly a maU 'in addition to the airport expansion program . 1 Al where Airport F easibility Study or / C( - Assessment are there any plans for anything but the proposed airport. W