10-27-1997 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the companies owning the franchise rights. This is a difficult negotiation will probably need further explanation later, but for now the important thing is to adopt this ordinance amendment so legally the • cable system can continue past November 8. Realistically I don't see the cable TV being turned off during this time,but upon the advisement of counsel,we should do it just the same. A Council action for Monday to be the first reading of this ordinance is recommended. Here is an update on activities that have happened this week. First, I met with MAC officials on Thursday and Bob Long via the telephone on the City's position regarding the airport plan. As I said to each of you Wednesday, our three points going into the discussion was to be opposed to any runway extensions,be opposed to new hangers for military hobby craft, and to all other facets of the plan that may upgrade the airport to allow for increased intermediary aircraft usage. The other objective of the meeting was to seek some compromise, hopefully regarding these points, to go back to the legislative delegation with that could be agreed to. During the meeting, our points were made. Representing MAC were their attorney Tom Anderson, their legislative affairs lobbyist Dave Dombrowski and airports planner Mark Ryan. A copy of their issues response to questions raised during the September legislative delegation meeting. Their responses to our issues were to consider limiting the north/south runway to 4,800 feet, but that the parallel runways are needed for training and taxiing, but their construction will be subject to funding. Mr.Ryan did not consider them to be alternates to the main runways. As far as hangaring, they felt they are not allowed to discriminate between types of aircraft for hangaring. Our response was to argue that the plan and operations do nothing to limit the use of the airport by intermediate • aircraft (even though these aircraft fit the minor use classification) and that hangar space used to house intermediate planes could in and of itself allow that use to grow at the airport. As far as components of the plan that can be construed as contributing to the intermediate use of the airport, their position is that nothing in the plan will lead to this and that MAC is planning within the appropriate framework allowed to them. This point was contested that no, in fact past legislation places limits on the growth planned for the airport. We agreed to disagree that we could not resolve the nature of this issue ourselves and either a court or legislative action would be needed. This of course places us back where we were, but I think some work with our legislators may assist us in determining how far the City can get with controlling growth issues. It was all worth the time, but the impact remains to be seen. On Tuesday I attended a meeting of representatives of the school district, Arden Hills, Shoreview and New Brighton regarding a study done by the school district on recreation facilities. Their conclusion was that there is a shortage of facilities in the district and that to address this issue would require the cities' input and consideration. By the end of the meeting a district wide bond issue was bandied about. The study is included in your packet. Cathy, Rick and I have met a couple of times regarding the Mermaid project. We are looking a couple of options geared to create more increment in the area so as to make a project more fiscally feasible for the City to participate in. We will keep you informed if we can come up with options that do this, or if you have any questions or ideas, feel free to call.