Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commission consensus was to approve the regular Airport Commission meeting <br />minutes dated February 20, 1985 as prepared. <br /> <br />. mMMlsSIONBnSINEf?~ <br /> <br />Mr. Koshak stated that the final draft of the Airport Master Plan was <br />submi tted to Mn/Dot, Metro Council and FAA in December, 1984 wi th 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 r s response was not <br />received until 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. Merland 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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Chairman Ippel referred to the recent study completed on the Crystal Airport <br />and the frequent accidents there. '!he study basically says that there is no <br />common cause, equipnent type or operation type involved in the recent <br />accidents; that the number of accidents is minuscule in comparison to the <br />number 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 FM's response regarding Ramsey's Airport Master Plan <br />includes their approval; that Mn/DoT's corranents were not substantial enough to <br />require amending the Master Plan. Mr. Otto noted that, in the beginning, <br />Mn/Dot was not 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 communi ty in going after <br />Federal funding. <br /> <br />Mr. Koshak read a letter from the Metropoli tan 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 funds in the foreseeable future. Mr. Otto explained that in order to <br />qualify for 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 wi thin 30 minutes of another national approved <br />facility, it can 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 developnent than there are Federal funds <br />available and FAA is very protective of their purse strings; FM is not saying <br />March 27, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />