| City Commission Work Session | Mayor Joan Bennett presiding |
CALL TO ORDER: 5:45 P.M.
PRESENT: Mayor Bennett, Commissioners Beecher, Downer, Gray, and Rosenbaum. Also present were City Manager, City Attorney, Directors of Community Development, Park & Recreation, Fiscal Control, Management Information Services, Planning, Library, Public Works, Acting Fire Chief, Police Chief, and City Clerk.
Mike Scheer, owner of the property, requested a variance to OCCGF 17/47.010 and 17.45.030. The variance would reduce the required 6' side yard setback to 2' and the required 30' front setback to 21'. Mr. Scheer wanted to build an attached garage.
The Board of Adjustment heard the request on Thursday, August 13, 1998. The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the variance request. It was the consensus of the City Commission to concur with the Board of Adjustment's recommendation.
Mr. Lawton stated that the purpose for the meeting was to talk about what effects submitting a proposal to Lockheed-Martin to consider Great Falls as a potential site for a launch/landing facility for the VentureStar, would have on the community. He explained that the time frame was tight for responding to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ).
Mr. Lawton stated that what we were not doing was:
Mr. Lawton added that what we were doing was:
preparing a response to an RFQ for Lockheed-Martin. (Note: The RFQ provides information on who we are and what we may possibly have to offer. The RFQ has to be submitted by September 8, 1998).
"Why are we doing this?" Mr. Lawton asked. He stated that we are a long-shot for the launch/landing site for the VentureStar. However, we have some very strong selling points and technical advantages that we wanted to let Lockheed-Martin know about.
Great Falls' strong points are:
Great Falls' weak point is:
we live in a scarcely populated state with limited dollars available to attract economic development opportunities. He explained that 18 states are competing for the 2 launch/landing sites and in some cases the states may offer to pay for the facility. We don't have that type of monetary advantage.
Mr. Lawton said that if we proceed and prepare a formal proposal, the proposal strategy would be to offer 2 or 3 sites. For example, we could partner with MAFB and use the vacated runway that is already in place. He stated that the cost savings for the VentureStar project if they used the MAFB runway could be as high as $25 million. Mr. Lawton suggested that another site could be near Manchester. He stated that we don't have a fix on what site is better and that we didn't know if we could deliver on either site. It boiled down to cost.
Mr. Lawton stated that we will work on incentives as part of the cost factor and that we may need to go to the Montana Legislature for tax incentives that would appeal to this type of project. He also suggested that we could use tax increment funding.
Mr. Ryan explained that the VentureStar is a vehicle that will go and return to space without dropping anything off (booster rockets). The polar orbit is a mid-level orbit used primarily for communication satellites. He added that the VentureStar program would include up to 40 launches per year. Fifty percent of those launches would be into the polar orbit. Each launch would be planned far in advance. The total cost for the VentureStar project could be between $500 and $600 million.
Mr. Ryan explained that because of our latitude advantage, VentureStar could save $450,000 per launch and that is one of the reasons why Great Falls could be a viable candidate to be a launch site for the program.
Mr. Ryan stated that this program would bring in 2000-3000 new jobs and that figure did not include the construction jobs. He added that the safety factor for the VentureStar is 5-9's which exceeds most commercial air traffic. Mr. Ryan added that this is not a pipe dream project. They have some major contributors already supporting the project.
Mr. Ryan reviewed that 1 of the 2 sites may have the capacity to construct VentureStar aircrafts. The VentureStar will be flown unmanned. However, astronauts may use the VentureStar for transportation to the space station.
Mr. Lockerby displayed a picture comparing the VentureStar to the X-33 and the current space shuttle used by NASA. The VentureStar is smaller than the shuttle but larger than the X-33. He stated that the X-33 will be tested in Great Falls next year and if it is successful then the program will go forward. However, it if is not successful, then the entire VentureStar project will be delayed.
Mr. Lockerby stated that the VentureStar site has to have 5000 hard acres of land that has to be relatively flat. He displayed an overhead of a proposed site plan for the VentureStar. He pointed out that the runway has to be 10,000' by 200'; there will be 2 launch pads; and that with the additional buildings there would basically be a small city constructed. He concluded that the biggest issue is that there has to be a 6-mile clear zone available. The people living in the clear zone would need to leave their property during an 8 hour window for each launch and landing.
Mr. Lockerby then displayed several maps that identified potential areas that could meet the minimum requirements. He added that MAFB may have some problems that would be need to be dealt with.
John Lawton concluded that in the event the Great Falls area was selected as a VentureStar site, arrangements would need to be made for fair and just compensation for the land needed. He stated that we would probably not go through a condemnation process to obtain the land.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the regular work session on September 1, 1998, adjourned at 6:40 p.m.