ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOES TOUCH AND GO

The Missourian has reported that the city has completed another step toward closure.  The Missourian should check the facts. 

The Environmental Assessment is being revised based on the comments that have been received and there will be another public hearing on the EA.  The EA was not made available electronically before the first hearing, but will be available electronically before the second hearing.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Indian tribes in Oklahoma have stated that they are not opposed to the closing of the airport.  I can now rest in peace knowing that someone two states away is not impacted by this action.  

What is hard to understand is that it is required to contact the Indians in Oklahoma, but no one was required to talk to the existing tenants of the airport!!  Kinda makes you wonder if anyone is actually steering this boat or it is just wandering aimlessly on its own. 

CLOSING COST

With the projected cost to the city to close the Airport now over $1,000,000, before the inflated airport cost by the city to operate the airport, you have to wonder about what is really happening.  Depending on the fair market value of the airport property, which is up to the FAA, cost could go much, much higher.  

If the airport cost the city $10,000 a year to operate, and there are 1500 households in the city, it would cost each household $6.66 a year.  The closing cost starting at $1,000,000, it is going to cost each house hold $666 dollars.  That is a 100 year payoff.

Let’s say for example the property is worth $20,000 per acre.  That would increase the cost per household to almost $1500, and would take 200 years to equal out. 

EA revisions

After The Environmental assessment for the airport will be revised based on the comments received to date.  the revisions there will be another comment period. 

FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS

The Environmental Assessment draft is out for review.  In the beginning of this document is a statement explaining why the city needs to close the airport.  “Therefore, the city of St. Clair’s primary goal is to close the airport due to financial constraints.”   What happened to the “Chesterfield like shopping center?”  The document also goes on to say that, “the commercial development of the Proposed Action does not have an anticipated date.”

What  the city is saying here, we need to close the airport because it is costing us money.  The next question should be, Why is it costing the city money to operate the airport?  But of course the city will not say this, but the reason is because the city wants it to cost the city money to operate the airport.   Without this point closure does not make any sense.  

The tenants and the airport have been blamed for this, as if the airport was a living breathing entity that could operate by itself.   But in reality the city is responsible for this.  The city has with intent and purpose managed this airport into financial ruin to pursue a closure.   

When you look at the numbers, the money spent on this, which is over 1 million dollars, yes that is 1,000,000 as compared to the cost of keeping it open at $10,000 per year, and share this over the cost to the taxpayers, it would take over 100 years for this to pay off.  Even if you double the cost to the city to operate the airport to $20,000 it would still take over 50 years to payoff. 

SEVEN TENANTS

The St. Clair Regional Airport will have seven tenants very shortly.  This is an important   point.  

With everything that is involved with the airport, it is almost at full occupancy.  With Washington having  a waiting list of over a dozen, and Sullivan has about five on their waiting list,  it is clear that there is a demand for hangars in the region.  Over a dozen aircraft have moved out of St. Clair to other airports, and with seven still on the field, it is clear that there is more of a demand for hangars than there is for new retail space in St. Clair. 

The city has spent millions of taxpayers’ money to develop new retail space in the redevelopment area, but the new auto parts store is not going there.   One important point of a TIF and a redevelopment plan is to show that the plan is feasible.  

The following paragraph is from the St. Clair redevelopment plan.

e. A cost benefit analysis showing the economic impact of this Redevelopment Plan on each taxing district that is at least partially within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area and showing the impact on the economy if the project is not built and is built pursuant to this Redevelopment Plan and including a fiscal impact study on every affected political subdivision and containing sufficient information from the selected redeveloper for the City’s TIF Commission to evaluate whether Redevelopment Project 1 as proposed is financially feasible;

What the city has not demonstrated is a demand for the redevelopment.  The redevelopment plan that the city has produced could be used for any parcel of real estate in the state.   What is not produced in the redevelopment plan is the demand for retail space.  Without the demand, the project is not feasible. 

It is clear that there is a larger demand for an airport in St. Clair than there is for another shopping mall.