Laserfiche WebLink
Commission consensus was to approve the regular Airport Commission meeting <br />minutes dated February 20, 1985 as prepared. <br /> <br />COMMTSS Tf'}IQ B[]RINF. qS <br /> <br />Mr. Koshak stated that the final draft of the Airport Master Plan was <br />submitted to Mn/Dot, Metro Council and FAA in December, 1984 with a request <br />that comments be returned to Ramsey by January 1, 1985. Mr. Koshak stated <br />that Metro Council and Mn/Dot replied by January 1 and FAA's response was not <br />received ~ntil January 28, 1985. <br /> <br />Mr. Koshak also referred to the update on the Metro Area Airport System Plan <br />being prepared by Metro Council and after some delay, that update has finally <br />been completed and the information included in it is not as pertinent to <br />Ramsey's airPOrt study as it was hoped it would be. <br /> <br />Mr. Merla~d Otto stated that because of these delays, it has been necessary to <br />revise RamseY's airport study project schedule and presented copies of that <br />revised schedule (see Attachment I). Mr. Otto reviewed the schedule with the <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Chairman Ippel referred to the recent study completed on the Crystal Airport <br />and the frequ~ent accidents there. ~he study basically says that there is no <br />common cause, equipment type or operation type involved in the recent <br />accidents; that the number of accidents is minuscule in comparison to the <br />n~nber of .operations; and there will be a concerted effort made towards better <br />communication between Fixed Base Operator, pilots, tower personnel and the <br />Metropolitan Airport Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto stated that FAA's response regarding Ramsey's Airport Master Plan <br />includes their approval; that Mn/DOT's comments were not substantial enough to <br />require a~ending the Master Plan. Mr. Otto noted that, in the beginning, <br />Mn/Dot was ~ot supportive of Ramsey's Airport Study and hoped it would prove <br />to be not feasible but they have turned around in their thinking considerably <br />and have indicated that they would support the community in going after <br />Federal funding. <br /> <br />Mr. Koshak read a letter from the Metropolitan Airport Commission in which <br />they stated that they are not interested in acquiring another facility but <br />feel that Gateway North would compliment their airport system plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto proceeded to review with the Commission a letter received from FAA <br />Airport District Office in which they state that they feel Gateway North will <br />not qualify as a reliever or non-reliever airport and will not qualify for <br />Federal fDnds in the foreseeable future. Mr. Otto explained that in order to <br />qualify f0r Federal funds an airport must be included in the National Airport <br />System Plan; in order to qualify for inclusion on that national system plan an <br />airport must be located at least 30 minutes beyond another airport in the <br />plan; if a facility is within 30 minutes of another national approved <br />facility, it ~an qualify as a reliever facility if it can attain 50 based <br />aircraft within two years of becoming operational. Mr. Otto added that there <br />is far more demand for airport development than there are Federal funds <br />available ~and FAA is very protective of their purse strings; FAA is not saying <br /> March 27, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />