In two meetings this week, November 27 and 30, airport manager Fred Watts and consultants from the MEA group have spelled out the consultants’ recommendations which will be reviewed by the airport advisory committee and then passed on to city council for consideration and approval. A number of items involving the airport master plan and the separate airport commercial development plan will be controversial.

   Here are some of the issues that generated a certain amount of heat and light at the meetings:

Landing Distance and Road on Airport Grounds.

    A proposed hotel on the airport or golf course south of the airport can not be reached by the proposed road along the eastern edge of the airport without crossing a safety area on Runway 13. That can not be done without modifying the runway or its operating conditions and that is unlikely. Therefore, if a hotel is approved anywhere but near Business 41, an entrance will be required off Harbor Drive. This information came as a surprise to many, including at least some city council members and is a development which will be very unpopular with neighbors along Harbor Drive.

   In order for a public road to be built to reach the east side of the airport, new limits will have to be imposed on pilots landing from the northeast on Runway 4-22, using rules which will reduce the landing distance available another 400 feet. Opponents fear that change would force additional jet traffic onto runway 13-31 if that traffic wanted to head north. Runway 31 leads over residences near Harbor Drive. The shorter runway would primarily affect jet traffic and is not of major concern to most current pilots. When wind conditions are favorable jets are requested to take off to the southwest. The full runway will be available in that direction.

   I think it will take a real fight to keep development from happening on or near Harbor Drive. The development and business community seems very favorably disposed to hotel development to encourage tourism. As an example, Mayor Fred Hammett was overheard saying, in words like, (not a direct quote), wait until they see what is going to happen at the airport, they will go ballistic. “They” appears to mean people in Golden Beach and nearby neighborhoods.

   Some development on the airport seems reasonable to me, especially if it is limited to the former circus area near Business 41 and on the east side of the airport without disturbing the Venetian Waterway Park and protected wildlife. Those conditions would rule out a Marina, since it would impinge on both.

   Earlier reports about possible hotel developments focused on the eastern area and the area south of the intersection of the runways. City officials told me that the area would be reached by the eastern road, which now appears impossible.

   The consultants planning for commercial development disclosed that an area right along Harbor Drive, essentially across from Sharky’s that has been used in the past for fairs and events, could be a site for commercial development. It is a strip of about 14 acres running parallel to the road and the edge of the golf course.

   Boone said he was unaware of what property in the “southwest corner” of the airport was referred to by a potential hotel developer in a letter to city manager Marty Black. I was referred by Black’s office to Fred Watts, who was tied up in these meetings, but who promised to make it available, perhaps tomorrow.

   The development of the airport, for example building a control tower, installing newer equipment, improving safety areas near the runways and building new taxi areas will raise questions. In the presentation Watts and the consultant projected income from various commercial enterprises on airport grounds as amounting to millions over a twenty year period. While any income from these properties would go to the airport fund, certain enterprises might create jobs and affect the economy in ways that would provide second-order benefits for the city’s revenues.

   It is not clear why the airport would need new millions. (Nor is it clear if such projections are reality-based.) First, the most recent complete year report, 2005, shows the airport solidly in the black with current revenues. Recent appraisals showed the airport was not collecting appropriate revenues and some increases in leasing fees are going into effect. City sources tell me they do not expect losses in 2006.

   Major capital expenditures in the future will be funded by federal funds, 95 percent, and state funds, 2.5 percent, leaving only 2.5 percent to come from local funds. While the airport will need improvements and additional funds, the items Watts mentioned as examples would be measured in tens of thousands, not millions. This line of reasoning raises questions about the amount and kind of commercial development, runway operating changes, etc. that are really needed to have a safe and well-equipped airport.

   The real energy here is coming from the growth industry, not airport users. The aircraft owners and pilots obviously want a viable, healthy airport, but in some ways they are caught in the middle between people concerned about noise and air pollution, and people wanting to use the airport as an engine for profit generation.

   The FAA does require airports to use their land efficiently to generate airport revenues, but they do not expect airports to generate excessive revenues and, in fact, have allowed non-revenue uses, e.g., parks and recreation areas. Their goal appears to be self-sufficiency and provision of good operating conditions and the revenues necessary for that to happen.

Stay tuned.