Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995.06.20 CITY COUNCIL MINUTESDATE: (062095) City Council 6/20/95 7:00 A.M. State of Idaho) County of Madison (ss City of Rexburg( Present were the following: Mayor: Councilman: City Clerk: Attorney: Engineer: Finance Officer: Pledge to the flag. Nile L. Boyle Jim Flamm Kay Beck Glen Pond Nyle Fullmer Farrell Davidson Bruce Sutherland Rose Bagley J. D. Hancock Joe Laird Richard Horner A motion was made by Jim Flamm and seconded by Nyle Fullmer to approve the minutes. All Aye RE: K STREET BEING USED BY CONSTRUCTION TRUCKS TOPIC: (19,140...K STREET,STH WEST,SUMMERWOOD SUBDIVISION,SIGNS) Some ladies representing K Street were at the meeting. On May 31, they had called Mayor Boyle and asked him if there was a reason why the construction trucks were going down K Street. The mayor had told her there was no reason they should go down K Street, they should be going down 5th West, and he said he would take care of it. Three weeks later, the trucks were still going down K Street and she called Delbert Edstrom and then called Jim Flamm. Jim got a three way conversation with the mayor or Mr Edstrom and could not reach either, so he then called John Millar who said he had talked to Edstrom and said he would go down and talk to them. Mr Flamm called back later and told her they would consider having some signs put up "No Trucks Allowed". Their concern is (1) there are over 40 children under the age of 18 on that street which is a dead end street, (2) that road is just not constructed to handle these huge trucks, (3) we were under the understanding the access would be 5th West and not K Street. She asked how soon the signs could be put up and what if they have no regard for the signs? The mayor said when he talked to them they said they were just bringing the belly dumps down K Street to do the turn -a -round. (Discussion on wording on signs). Nyle told her there would have to be a complaint signed by the witness. The witness would have to take the license plate down and become a complainer and sign the citation of a real citizens arrest. Kay told the council it would take two to three weeks to get the signs up. Farrell suggested that a barricade be put up until the signs are put up. A motion was made by Jim Flamm that we get a sign up at both ends of the street and barricade it until the signs are up. J. D. could word the sign such as "No Trucks Allowed Except service Trucks". Seconded by Bruce Sutherland. All Aye RE: RECYCLING BINS & RECYCLING DISCUSSED TOPIC: (19,140,,,RECYCLING,B.F.I.,GARBAGE,TRANSFER STATION) Carl Kay Rasmussen was at the meeting. He had read in the paper about the proposal for recycling. Recently he was in Lewiston and had noticed that they have a series of containers up there and his brother-in-law told him it was for recycling. They have a man that works on his own, the city does not pay him and they have a series of these containers around the town in various locations and he comes with the truck and dumps them into bins he has on his truck and recycles it and that is his source of income. He felt we should look at it further. (referring to the article from Reader's Digest on file) He expressed that he is is not in favor of curb side recycling. He felt there was a better way to do it. He did not feel the citizens should have to pay for it. Mable Smith- We are basically guaranteeing this gentleman an income. The city will do the billing, collecting, handle his complaints, contact the residents if they don't comply with his pickup rules and the citizens have no choice except to accept his services. The citizens can't drop the service if they are not satisfied. She is not against recycling, but she did not think this was the right method for the city. It is not fair to force people to pay this man's professional business. The mayor told the council after the article was put in the paper we have had 60 phone calls from residents with 26 for it and 34 against. The mayor felt it was not cost effective to recycle. It still costs money. In Boise at the landfill it costs $16 a ton but here it is $50 a ton. If we went to Bonneville County Landfill it would cost $68. Wayne Baker from B.F.I. stated they are asking the people to pay for the convenience. We have been operating the drop off centers in Rexburg at a loss and this is a business and they need to show a profit. They have added cardboard to this list they will pick up. There are several options this could be done including a drop off with a Blue Bag. We need to reduce the amount of Solid Waste going to the Landfill. With the Blue Bag the residents would separate the garbage in their home in a Blue Bag, You would put all the Recyclable items in one bag and the regular garbage in another special bag. At the Transfer Station the colored bags would be separated and sorted. It is not as efficient as the way B.F.I. proposed. The mayor explained the B.F.I. made a proposal to the city to pick up all of their garbage and felt comfortable that they could do it without increasing costs and do the curb side recycling. Because of law suits they have had in the past, they will not be a part of transferring any garbage other than to a Title B Landfill, which Bonneville County is ------ but Jefferson County is not. As soon as the garbage was going to a non Title B Landfill, they are not willing to do that. If our garbage was going to a Title B Landfill, they would look at that one. In the City of Boise the residents pay $7.95 regular and if they curb Side Recycle they give them $1 discount and only charge them $6.95. In the ADA County where the pickups are further apart, they charge them $7.95 but they do not give them a $1 discount if they have curb side recycling. They are getting about 85% of the people in ADA county that are doing the curb side recycling. If we did curb side recycling we would probably save 353 tons at $50 a ton we could probably pay about $1 of the $2 charge. Glen Pond asked what the cost of the Blue Bag would be? Wayne Baker said they would have to determine that based on the transportation and sorting. There would be some cost involved to the city. The mayor said if we do not do this he felt the city would not continue putting money in the recycling bins around town. He asked Mr Baker if we don't put any money in the upkeep if B.F.I. would discontinue picking them up? Mr Baker said that was likely they would discontinue. The mayor said he thought most of the weight comes from newspaper. Mr Baker said they would maintain the newspaper drops. (discussion) The mayor felt that recycling is not cost effective and we probably should back away. It would cost about $6000 to maintain the recycling bins. Richard said we did not budget for it and if we continue we will have to raise the garbage rates. The transfer station has always accepted any recycling items without going across the scale. A motion was made by Bruce Sutherland that we continue the way we are doing it now without curb side recycling but that we discontinue the recycling bins. Seconded by Jim Flamm. Jim felt we should work with Mr Baker and try to work out something that is cost effective. Nyle said the problem he had with curb side recycling is everyone is going to have to pay the extra but we will still end up taking it to the landfill, because people won't recycle. All voting aye. The mayor said we need to get a plan to get the yard waste out of the garbage. The mayor said we would discontinue the recycling bins as of July 1. RE: COMPLAINT ON STREET CREWS WORK; STREET IMPROVEMENTS TOPIC: (19,142,,, STREETS,STREET DEPARTMENT) Budge Clay- He had a clipping out of the paper about the Override Election. He realized there needs to be a lot of road work done. His question is about supervision and organization. He was concerned because he had observed over the last two weeks city crews working on _.. the patch jobs on the streets. His first observation was when they were doing a 10' x 20' patch job just around the corner from 6th South and 5th West. There were five men, a big truck pulling a trailer, a backhoe, a dump truck and a pickup doing a 10' x 20' patch. He could not see why the city should pay five men for five hours to do that patch and during that time all those outfits were parked there. When he walked down to see what was going on, three men were leaning on a • shovel or rake. The only men that were working was one man with a rake and the one in the backhoe. The man in the backhoe was dumping it out and shaking it and tamping it down and the other four men were not doing anything. He did not think it was profitable to have the men stand around. The next project he saw was a block east of Steiner Elevators at that intersection and the same thing was going on there. There was one on 7th South and 5th West and he got out of his outfit and talked to them. One of the men said he was doing the job that he was assigned. He had a shovel but at that time there was no need for a shovel. Instead of dumping out the asphalt and getting those men to work, one man was doing the job with a rake. When the backhoe wasn't needed he was sitting there observing. When there is that small of a patch job they should be split up and put someplace where they are doing the job they are assigned to do. He felt there should be better management and better supervision. Better than half of the men that are on a patch job are not working they are standing. Something needs to be done. He had worked hard all his life and could probably work harder than those men. He has observed this situation many times. We should not be paying men to lean on their shovels. Kay Beck said he would talk to Farrell about it. RE: INGRESS/EGRESS DISCUSSED; DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS TOPIC: (19,142,,,EGRESS,INGRESS/EGRESS,REFLECTIONS,U.B.C.,BASEMENTS, DOWNTOWN) Ingress/Egress-(Joe gave a handout on file) He and the Fire Chief went over to the Reflections Hair Salon. They were not able to find a way to get another exit out of there, but did find some more violations. The clearance on the stairs was 5' 10" instead of the 6' 9" There is an open grade from the basement outside. This basement is just a typical downtown basement that we see in all the downtown stores. Basements and second stories have been found to be one of the most dangerous places as far as deathly type fires go. Because of this the U.B.C. has some tight restrictions on basements and their use. (discussion on the handout with exceptions) He had talked to local contractors about the cost to put stair wells out of a basement and they tell me it will cost from $2000 to $3000. (explaining) He stated the only thing he could suggest is 111003.1 Number of Exits and making an (8) exception to that similar to Exception (2), Exception (8) would read A business on the second floor or in the basement of an existing building and having an occupancy group classification of B.F.M or S of business factory, mercantile or storage can be served by only one exit if the total occupant load served by that exit does not exceed ten. The total occupancy load shall be calculated using the requirements and criteria set forth in Chapter 3 and 10 of the code. Smoke detectors shall be installed in the 2nd floor or basement as called for in the code or as directed by the building official. Joe told the council if they want an exception to all of this we could add this as an eight exception and add the same thing to the section on fire sprinkling system. They are all tied together. (discussion) Joe stated that probably in this instance where they have a very small basement, with two tanning beds and a little storage area, this would probably fit within this exemption 8 because they would have less than ten occupants. Joe said this exemption won't solve all of our problems. J. D. stated that we have a problem because these buildings downtown were all built before the U.B.C. was in effect. He felt this exemption would be defensible. Once they go over the occupancy loan of ten they need to bring it to code. Jim stated as someone comes in and changes the use of the building, we need to make sure they know they can't change the use of it without the additional expense of meeting the code. People need to be very careful as these buildings change hands that people don't get the idea that they can do things in the basements that would violate the code. We can grandfather what is going on, but the time to do it is when the change is made. Bruce felt it was the responsibility the owner to comply not the renter. A motion was made by Kay Beck to add Exemption S. Glen questioned it and Nyle explained and also stated it should be for the long term. Jim stated this would protect existing uses. Seconded by Farrell Young. All Aye The mayor asked J. D. to write up the exemption. RE: LANDSCAPING AT THE WATER TANK - 5TH SOUTH 2ND EAST TOPIC: (19,143,,, WATER TANK,LANDSCAPING,5TH SOUTH,2ND EAST) The mayor reported on the landscaping at the water tank at 5th South and 2nd East. Joe, DeLynn and the Mayor went up to the water tank and looked at it. For what ever reason when that was engineered, that retaining wall is illegal for the clear site triangle and the fence is too close to the road. They would need to move the fence up to the top of the berm, cut off the retaining wall, and put in somekind of ground cover and water it. Possibly by the time we finished, we are talking in excess of $10,000. There are a couple of problems, the concrete wall in the back that used to be part of the water tank, do we want to do something on that side and include that? We would need to haul in dirt and have landscaping. The retaining wall is for a catch basin. Most of the cost would include cutting off the retaining wall and sloping the ground back out and putting a fence along the top of it and putting in a sidewalk along the top. The mayor explained we need a retaining wall of somekind. Richard told the council the budget could handle it. A motion was made by Bruce to do what ever is most cost effective, a solid fence or landscaping. (discussion) Seconded by Nyle Fullmer. All Aye. RE: REQUEST FOR FOUR-WAY STOP SIGNS TOPIC: (19,143,,, SAFETY COMMITTEE,STOP SIGNS,TRAFFIC,IST SOUTH, 2ND EAST) We have a request with the Traffic Safety Committee for four-way stop signs. The police don't have any problem with moving the ones off 1st and 3rd South and just having the one at 2nd South and 2nd East. The Traffic Committee wanted the one from lst South moved to let South and Center. What Chief Siepert would like to try there rather than going to the four-way stop is to try some larger stop signs and street painting. (discussion on 1st South as a through street and stop signs) Glen reminded the council, when we widened 2nd East we talked to the people and told them we would have the stop signs where they are located and that was the agreement. He was hesitant in going up and changing that, because that agreement was made with those residents when we widened that street. Bruce agreed. Kay said he thought we should just do it. (discussion) Nyle Fullmer said the way it is now it keeps the traffic flow pretty constant but he would get some input from the people along that street. RE: ORDINANCE 774 - INTERMOUNTAIN GAS FRANCHISE TOPIC: (19,144,ORD,774,INTERMOUNTAIN GAS,FRANCHISE FEES, FRANCHISE TAX) ORDINANCE NO. 774 - Intermountain Gas Franchise Ordinance AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, GRANTING TO INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY A TEN (10) YEAR EXTENSION TO TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM: PROVIDING FOR THE USE OF STREETS AND ALLEYS, AND RULES GOVERNING THE SAME, SUBJECTING THE GRANTEE TO ALL POWERS OF THE CITY: SETTING FORTH THE RULES OF THE FRANCHISE AND GRANT: PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHT OF INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF GRANTEES PLANS, ACCOUNTS, AND BOOKS; REQUIRING GRANTEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN MAPS: SETTING FORTH THE QUARTERLY PAYMENT TO THE CITY, AND THE FILING OF QUARTERLY REPORTS WITH THE CITY; REQUIRING GRANTEE TO INDEMNIFY CITY, AND FILE EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE: REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY REGULATIONS; SETTING FORTH AN AGREEMENT NOT TO COMPLETE, RESERVING POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN: PROVIDING FOR SURRENDER OF FRANCHISE: GRANTING RIGHT TO SALVAGE; REQUIRING WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE: PROVIDING FOR CONSENT TO SALE OR ASSIGNMENT; PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF PUBLICATION COST; SETTING FORTH PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES, SEPARABILITY AND REPEAL. (discussion) This is the third reading of the ordinance. Ordinance 774 was then placed before the council. The mayor then called for the voting for final passage of the ordinance, and the motion was made by Jim Flamm and seconded by Nyle Fullmer that ordinance 774 be passed. Those voting aye: Glen Pond Jim Flamm Nyle Fullmer Farrell Young Those voting nay: Kay Beck Bruce Sutherland The roll showed the majority of all the city council members present voted for the passage of said ordinance which was regularly passed. Mayor Boyle declared the motion passed. A motion was made by Jim Flamm and seconded by Farrell Young to pay the bills. All Aye The mayor told the council that we need to go into a work session to decide about the Override Election. Meeting adjourned. Mayor, Ni a L. Boyle City Cl rk ose Bagley/ DATE: (062095) AIRPORT BOARD Public Hearing 6-20-95 6:00 p.m. Airport Board: Gerald Taylor Roger Porter Warren Smith Richard Smith Steven Terry Don Larson, FAA, Seattle Airports District Office Wayne D. Pickerill, ITD, Div. of Aeronautics, Boise Others: Mayor, Nile L. Boyle, County Commissioners - Brooke Passey, Gerald Jeppesen; City Council - Nyle Fullmer, Kay W. Beck. Janet Williamson was present to take minutes for Rose Bagley. RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR AIRPORT SITE SELECTION TOPIC: (19,145,,, AIRPORT,PUBLIC HEARINGS) Gerald Taylor opened the meeting, introduced the board and turned the time over to Armstrong Consultants. Ed Armstrong said he would have Sue go over the alternatives for the existing site and then those that needed to leave early could make comments. Following their comments, the alternative sites would be presented. He said that what they were there to do is basically cover the preliminary - it is a draft stage of the site selection. After this point the Airport Board and agencies need to select a preferred alternative to the existing site and 3 out of the 6 alternatives we have studied for further study. A month from now they will come back with a final draft. At that point it will be up the agencies and the community to select the preferred alternative to those 4 alternatives. Ed turned the time over to Sue. She explained that this is a preliminary analysis of the existing site and also the alternative sites. The preliminary analysis is to assess the development options and how best the recommmended facility requirements for the airport can be developed. What that means is is it best to develop those facilities and the existing site or another site. If the existing site is developed, several nonstandard conditions (those that do not meet FAA guidelines) will have to be corrected. These costs and conditions are included as part of each alternative's evaluation. With all of the alternatives to the existing airport a redesign of the golf course and some acquisition of homes/land would be involved. Sue gave a description of each of the alternatives to the existing airport, their rating scale and criteria, accommodation of aviation demand, airspace impacts, environmental impacts, and development costs of each. (Copy attached). (Break here for comments) Keith Steiner, CEO of Madison Memorial Hospital & President of the Chamber of Commerce - The location of the hospital to the airport is very important and in relationship to disaster planning and the mere conveniences of relationship of business and positions and the personal and also professional interests of those that fly the airport has been very essential to us. Rexburg has become the hub for several major aspects of commerce and business and education and health care. The hospital has had to assume the role and responsibility of being the regional, primary care provider hospital for services. When you get into the definition of a regional center you get into the definition of an airport, so I want to speak specifically to the importance of that airport remaining in Rexburg. There are reasons for this. 1 - in reviewing the airport we see that there are numerous small airplane hanger owners (almost 40); we also have a very thriving small business with Hart Enterprises and also the other businesses, and those people have worked very hard over the years and desire to have that remain in place. Second - we recognize that there has already been some investment made in that airport. Particularly, there has been an $800,000 grant where the entire runway and the parking area have been completely resurfaced and the runway of 6" of asphalt makes it an excellent surface for landing. Also, taking into consideration that relocation of any of those private businesses and hangers could equal 1 1/2 - 2 million dollars, in this day and age when we know that grant money is really being tied up, it really becomes a concern. And so, as I see it, (at least from a business point of view) the investment into the existing location is something that needs to be weighed very heavily. The extension of the runway seems feasible. At one time the river really was a barrier. We are encouraged that there are alternatives that can work. The investment and cost to completely relocate the airport is something that needs to be seriously considered. I think that future dollars can be very well used to give serious consideration to expansion. Bob DaBell, MEDCO Representative - One of the original goals of MEDCO was to support the expansion of the existing airport. Many and various groups of people and individuals ask about and use the existing airport. Extending the runway at the existing airport will help preserve the existing 1.4 million dollar assets at the present airport and provide an airport that will help serve the needs of a business community built upon the collective capital contributions of many individual families. Based upon what he has studied and heard he urges the airport board and FAA to maintain the existing airport site and continue the study to determine the most cost effective way to extend the runway to enhance safety and assessablity of additional air traffic. (Sue continued reviewing the existing site alternatives - copy attached) Nick Pela reviewed the 6 alternative sites scattered through out the valley. At this point, no comparison was made between the relocation sites and any of the alternative sites that Sue talked about. Initially they drew an arch about 5 miles around the City of Rexburg and used that as a starting point to locate several sites. The only site that is outside of that 5 mile radius is the Snake River Site. The 6 sites identified are Burton Site, Joint county Site, Rexburg Bench East Site, Rexburg Bench West Site, Snake River Site, and Teton Site. Nick went over each site and their rating. (6 sites with limiting factors and construction costs attached.) The Burton and Joint County were the 2 top rated sites. Some of the positive highlights of these 2 sites are: Burton - Best soils - Best IFR Utilization (Because of lower elevation) - $650,000 cheaper to build - Closer to Rexburg - No Wet Land Impact - Less Noise Impact Joint County - Best Wind Coverage - Funding split with Fremont County - Land acquisition easier (fewer owners) (cheaper - less land) - Less Farm Land taken out of production David Taylor - He lives about 500 yards off of the south end of the runway and the noise does not bother him. There are 2 things that he wants to bring up. One - last year he had a daughter that was injured and the decision was made to life flight her to Salt Lake. It was during the Summer and the density of the altitude was high enough were the life flight wouldn't come into Rexburg. I really feel that there is a need there for the runway to be lengthened. Two - I have flown into a lot of airports as a pilot and appreciate it when the airport is located in proximity to the city. So, I am a voice toward keeping the current site. It seems like it would be the most economically feasible. Relocating the river would not be a problem - 3/4's of the time it is dry. Eldon Hart - He is concerned with relocating the airport. He has a school, Aero Technicians, that dates back to Ricks College in 1946 and they currently limit their enrollment in the mechanics program to 25 students. Many of the schools are being closed up in the country because of money constraints. If they had to go to the joint county site, (they would recommend it because of St. Anthony), but at the same time, because of housing, because of transportation costs, he thinks they would close the school because it is too far from housing and the transportation costs would be too high. About 2 years ago they had an expensive alarm system put in their building mainly because they have had someone break in, mangle a vending machine and get into the till and take money, several times a month. The Fire Department or the Police are there now quicker then he can drive to the airport. One of the reasons they are is because of the alarm system. If we move the site then we lose this service and we have to provide fire protection, water, sewer, etc. Personally, he feels we need this extension. The school lost a G1 airplane because they didn't have a long enough runway to take off on. With the facilities we have, the water and sewer we have, he feels that at the present time it would be better to keep the airport where it is and extend the runway. Mike Walker, Director for Madison County Ambulance - He is in support of lengthening the existing runway. As David Taylor said, the life flight airplanes won't land here under certain conditions. What happens is we have to go to Idaho Falls and pick the team up, bring them back here, pick up the patient and then go back to Idaho Falls. It is a lot of time and a lot of unnecessary time in the back of an ambulance. He lives 4 houses north of Dave and noise is not a problem, but in view of the ambulance, we probably would recommend keeping it in the present site. One thing is, we are 5 minutes away from the hospital. We can get there and back quicker. Also, there are times when the Air 1 Rescue from Idaho Falls lands and they have been somewhere else and haven't had time to refuel before they fly up here. The airport now is close enough they can go out there and be back by the time we go into the hospital and get the patient and have them back out to the helicopter. The further out it is, it puts one of our 2 ambulances out of commission that much longer. It is nice having it close by. Patty Forsgren, member of the Golf Board - Speaking in behalf of the Golf Board we like it just where it is also. There isn't a better neighbor for a golf course then an airport. She had a question for Mr Larson - being familiar with part 77 of the FAA guidelines, tell me how you are going to have enough room to clear a 15' truck, being so close to the highway, if you were to move 400 feet south? Mr. Larson said they talked about that this afternoon. That is one thing that we have to deal with. Patty asked if they didn't need several hundred more feet then we have, even moving 400? That is true, Mr. Larson said, as she pointed out in the alternatives to the existing site, that would still leave you 1500 feet short of what you need. FAA would not agree to an extension that would put the beginning of the runway protection zone, for instant, right on the road. So, really, it is not an option to move the runway 400 feet south because of the road. Ed Armstrong said if you were to move south you could have that runway for take off to the north and have a displaced threshold for a forced landing, which basically means they would be landing farther down the runway which would take care of your 21 approach load. Richard Smith - so to clear this question up - our runway landing area would be shorter then our take off. Yes. (Some discussion) What would be the restriction on the south - would there be a declared distance? Don Larson, yes. Richard - We would have a declared distance so that would be an unusable landing on the south end and taking off from the north to the south we would have a declared distance unusable. Richard Law, City Councilman in the City of St. Anthony - On June the 13th the city council passed this resolution: Be it resolved that the City of St. Anthony endorses the creation of a regional airport if the regional airport is located on the county line site. In talking with the people in St. Anthony, Ashton and surrounding communities, we would benefit greatly from a regional airport located on the county line. It would serve the the needs of the entire upper valley. Jim Martin, Superintendent of the Golf Course - mentioned that in all 3 alternatives to the existing airport there was a million dollars planned for the reconstruction of the golf course. He asked just what that was for. What would be the impact on the golf course? Ed said those would be adjusted depending on the number of holes to be reconstructed. They had allowed $100,000.00 for each hole that would be changed plus moving of the golf club. The mayor asked if that million dollars was part of the cost and eligible for FAA funding and Ed said yes. Mayor asked if there was any money for relocating hangers, Ed Harts business, etc. and Don Larson said no, not if they were relocated to a new site. If, for safety reasons, they needed to be relocated at the existing site there would probably be money for that. Jason Nielson, Pres. of the Golf Board - If the runway is only extended to the north, he thinks they can get by at the golf course, from what they have determined, without many changes. The golf course is a big drawing power and takes in over $100,000 dollars a year. By not extending it to the south his understanding is that all they would have to do is put a fence down the runway to keep people from going on to the runway and move hole #6 tee box. If your talking a million dollars to change the golf course this would be a whole lot cheaper. We are talking about having the same golf course and keeping a nice golf course that people will come and play. (Some discussion of how far the fence would be into the golf course) Richard felted there had been mixed signals given to the airport board as to where the fence would need to be located. Don Larson said that at different times there have been different design categories assigned to the airport. Over time, some of the design standards have changed. Right now though, based upon the recommendations that the consultants have come up with in their plan, this would be designed for a B-2 category airport and the runway object free area will be 500 feet wide. What you want to look at is not making the situation worse but your not looking at tearing out hangers etc. The airport board has been told many time 125 feet from center line and also there might be a variance of 62 feet. Don said that was based on previous design categories - maybe visual only operations and small aircraft. Now you are looking at providing an airport that will serve the needs of larger aircraft - aircraft over 12,500 pounds, twin engines, turbo crops, occasional business jets - things of that nature, that automatically puts the airport into a design category that has more stringent requirements then what was needed in the past. Your getting by with a situation now that is a "touch and go" type situation, with people operating that close to the runway that if the FAA were to put a lot of money into developing the airport, particularly runway extension, then we would also be looking at a high priority of safety. Ed said that their intend in the plans were that if the holes at the golf course had to be moved there would be money in there for that. Patty Forsgren said there is not enough land there to do that and then they would just have an executive course. Jim Martin stated that if the fence has to go 250 feet there wouldn't be enough width to play a hole up and a hole back along the side of it. Ed said that if you look at #2, 3A, and 3b all of those show the holes out of the object free area. Kent Jolley - he lives just through the golf course on the east side. He said the golf course seems to be a nice buffer between their subdivision and the runway. Noise is not a factor. It is not a particular annoyance. It would seem to him, considering all the economic factors, it would be silly to try to move the airport. Considering the existing businesses and hangers it would be best to stay there and work out the problems with the golf course. Paul LaBeck - In respect to what Mr. Jolley said, everything is fine now, but, if you do extend your present runway, and you get more frequent operations and larger aircraft, in ten years will you have curfews? Don't look at today and tomorrow - look ahead 10 years. The world is changing. Lewis Hart, Hart Enterprises - One of the things that this survey has convinced me of is there isn't a good alternative to where the airport is now. I have always been of the impression that the airport should be where you can zone it so that if someone moves in they can't complain about it. I have always leaned towards the idea that the airport should be moved. And it should have been back in 1976. But from this study, it is pretty obvious that the best alternative is to leave it where it is and improve it. John Millar, representing Planning & Zoning - We addressed this issue through our planning and zoning group and we support the site at its existing location. We have developed zoning around the site to help protect the area and those businesses and residents there. He felt it may be easier for the airport board to make a decision on the value of length if there were some type of presentation made in graphical form showing the number of expected annual operations that would be lost if you dropped the runway length from 6500 to 6000 or 5500. Are we buying 500 feet of runway for 100 operations a year? That greatly effects the impact on the river and the wetlands area. The relocation of the river, as proposed, will never sell. You will never get that past a core of engineers. I am sure there is a more feasible alternative. Mayor asked if you buy those 4 homes what do you do with that property after you buy it? Don said if FAA participates in land acquisition for approach protection we expect any dwellings or structures to be removed and not to be constructed. You could use it for low intensity activities like open park land, crops that don't attract birds, things of that type. Kent Jolley asked if they were aware of the existing navigation easement at that particular location. Years ago, when he was county attorney, he remembers they went through the process to acquire the navigation easement all around the existing airport and that includes the area being talked about. Richard asked then, if there is this easement, then the $525,000 acquisition costs may not be required. Ed said that in the long fun you would want to purchase those homes and the area if they ever come up for sell. The Mayor had heard that that property had been sold with in the last month and they were going to develop homes in that area. Was that navigation easement ever put on any planning and zoning? Kent felt that it was in existence. It was Richards understanding that those easements had been recorded. It is important that the city or county attorney look into this easement. Armstrong's will be back, in about a month, after they have reviewed each of the alternatives against the existing airport alternatives.