Laserfiche WebLink
BTATUB OF AIRPORT COMMISSION <br /> AND IMPROVEHENTB AT <br />GATEWAY NORTH INDUSTRIAL AIRPORT <br />By: Merland Otto <br /> <br />c~sE #~ <br /> <br />Background= <br /> <br />On June 6, 1990 the City Council and the Airport Commission met in <br />joint session to discuss the status of the airport and the Airport <br />Commission. It was determined at the June 6th meeting to table any <br />action until the June 26th meeting so that additional information <br />might be obtained. <br /> <br />Specifically, two questions were raised at the joint meeting. The <br />first was whether an economic benefit study had been done for Anoka <br />County Airport. The second question regarded the extent of <br />Metropolitan Council's and Metropolitan Airports Commission's <br />interest and possible financial commitment to the project. <br /> <br />I checked with Metropolitan Council to determine whether an <br />economic impact study had been done for Anoka County. None has <br />been done. Economic impact studies have been done for Flying <br />Cloud, St. Paul Downtown and regional impacts of Minneapolis- <br />St. Paul International. Positive economic benefits are indicated <br />in each case. <br /> <br />The second question pertained to the extent of interest by MC and <br />MAC in Gateway Airport. I had indicated that MC was the policy <br />making entity while MAC was the operating agency. Traditionally, <br />MAC has been reluctant to undertake additional airports due to the <br />financial demands that it faces with MSP and existing relievers. <br />Each of the agencies are supportive of bringing Gateway into public <br />ownership as a complementary part of the system. <br /> <br />In recent discussion with Mr. Chauncey Case, MC's senior aviation <br />planner, they view Gateway as a possible option to meet aviation <br />demand in the metro area particularly if Anoka County cannot be <br />expanded. The MC's system plan acknowledges the improvement at <br />Gateway as an option for relief within the regional system. It <br />becomes increasingly attractive considering that from planning to <br />operation of a new facility is estimated to take 10 to 15 'years. <br />MC, although it does not participate in funding implementation <br />programs, can strengthen its recommendation for MAC participation. <br />It is Mr. Case's opinion that it is more likely that initially <br />MAC's participation would be limited to operating and maintenance <br />aspects rather than development. He further indicated that all of <br />the agen=ies are interested in the level of participation that the <br />City is willing to commit to. <br /> <br /> <br />