Venice Airport Business Association Direct Economic Impact Study

The VABA is pleased to announce the results of our Venice Municipal Airport Direct Economic Impact Study. Although under no obligation to do so, the commercial business tenants at the Airport, who for the most part are private enterprises, have agreed to share certain key operating statistics, in the aggregate, with the other members of the Venice community.

In 2000, the City of Venice published the currently approved Airport Master Plan Update. Its Chapter eleven contains a detailed economic analysis that indicates that the Venice Municipal Airport contributes some $22,000,000.00 in direct economic impact to our region. Recently, critics of the Airport have suggested that the number can't possibly be that high and have sought to marginalize the 2000 study. Our commercial business tenant Members have taken this extraordinary action in an effort to demonstrate to our community that our commercial Airport activities represent a significant economic engine and have significant positive direct impact on Venice.

These statistics were developed by interviewing each of the Airport Avenue Concerns, and then aggregating the data so that the privacy of any one contributor is maintained. The following data do not take into account any indirect economic contribution… we are not economists and accordingly do not feel qualified to offer such an opinion. The following data also do not take into account any economic contributions made to the community by the Airport Administration employees, the Golf Course, the Sarasota County Sheriff or Sharkeys on the Pier which are obviously significant.

During the calendar year 2007 the Airport Avenue Concerns brought gross revenues in the aggregate of approximately $19,900,000.00 to our community during the same period, the Airport Avenue Concerns employed approximately ninety (90) equivalent full time employees for an aggregate payroll of approximately $3,600,000.00. The Airport Avenue Concerns have made aggregate investments of approximately $16,000,000.00 in their leaseholds, equipment and fixtures at our Airport. The same Airport critics may seek to impugn these voluntary disclosures. However we choose to leave it to you, our fellow members of the Venice community to decide for yourselves how important our business activities at the Airport are to the economic health of our great City.

Thank you for your interest and consideration, The Venice Airport Business Association A C Schmieler, President http://vabassociation@gmail.com vabassociation@gmail.com Visit www.veniceaviationsociety.com for a link to the Year2000 Master Plan – review the executive summary and chapter 11 – decide for yourself the airport’s economic impact.

 

What do you think?

BOB VEDDER
COLUMNIST GONDOLIER SUN PUBLISHER
Venice, FL
(941) 207-1000
Fax (941) 484-8460
Sunday Oct. 5, 2008

In a recent e-mail to interim city manager Nancy Woodley, Venice City Council Member Sue Lang outlined what she feels should be the scope of work for the new airport consultant. In essence, she outlined how she would like to see the airport after the study. Ms. Lang has a vision for the airport that, in short, is to shrink its use considerably.

Her suggestions include:

• Getting accurate data on takeoffs and landings (to show that the airport is not as busy as the previous study suggested).
• Not asking for waivers from the Federal Aviation Administration for a layout plan, but rather containing the airport within its existing boundaries by reducing its classification. (She would like to reduce the classification from C-II to B-II.)
• Making other reductions, including getting rid of jet, helicopter and commercial training, and jets themselves for the most part. She would like to see a lot of the current activities of the airport move to the Charlotte airport. She does not want Venice to be a reliever airport for Sarasota.
• Not redoing runway 4/22, which is in miserable shape, but repairing it instead. (There have been two incidents of blown tires on this runway in the last year. City council already has delayed fixing this, and we can only hope there is no serious injury that happens during further delays. Sometimes they talk safety, but do they mean it?)
• Not adding hangars, tie-downs, a control tower or instrument-landing systems. • Having a noise-abatement program but no new a Part 150 noise study. (A noise study was recommended by the Airport advisory Board and turned clown by council. I can only think that the reason you would not want one of these is it might show there is not a big noise problem, which is the whole grounds for all the complaints about the size of the airport. I have heard but not confirmed that the last study, done 15 years ago, showed no major noise outside of the footprint of the airport.)
• Not accepting FAA or Florida Department of Transportation grants. (This, I guess, explains not reconstructing runway 22 but repairing it.)
• Getting the FAA’S permission to sell non-aviation areas of the airport such as the Holiday Apartments, the municipal mobile home park, the golf course and the circus arena. (The idea then is to have airport activities pay to maintain the airport. Of course, there have been years when, with all the extra revenue, the airport budget has still run a deficit, so that seems very naive. You not only have to run it, but it has to be maintained.)
• Doing an actual economic impact study from aviation businesses. (Although the Venice Airport Business Association has done one that shows $19 million in direct economic impact, it wouldn’t hurt to do an independent study.)
• Having aviation fuel sold by the city instead of the fixed-base operator.

I am curious if Ms. Lang’s ideas coincide with the feelings of all the residents of the city or even a majority of them. Is this the feeling of the people in North Venice? Is it the feeling of the merchants on Venice Avenue that benefit from people coming to Venice? Is it the feeling of the people in Pinebrook? Is it the feeling of the businesses at the airport that have a payroll in the millions and contribute many more millions to the economy? Is it the feeling of those all over the island? Maybe they all don’t have a problem with the airport the way it is.

Is it a problem for the residents in East Gate, Bird Bay or Pinebrook? Is it a problem for all the 1,100 chamber members who want a vibrant economy of which the airport is an important piece? Is it the feeling of the hundreds of pilots who have used this airport for years? I wonder if all of the businesses at the airport share her vision. I and you know differently. Is it the best for the economy of Venice?

Her views, at least in part, are a problem with the FAA, which ultimately controls the airport and is against many of these ideas. Going against the FAA is only going to bring the city protracted problems, unnecessary costs, wasted time, uncertainty and maybe lawsuits. Can’t some very sound changes be made to control noise (most have been done, incidentally) and ensure that large-scale development does not happen, the golf course is protected and the environment is not affected? Is it possible that these feelings are those of a vocal minority?

Of course, Sue is entitled to her opinion, and she well might represent hundreds of the 21,000 people who live in the city. Yet her job, and that of all the council members, is to represent all of the people of Venice. By their actions it would appear to me that they are not doing so.

* * Robert A Vedder writes a twice-weekly column in this paper