Barbara Haake

6,000ft Runway Potential First Alarm Bell-A resident in the audience asked whether FCM would ever have a 6,000ft runway.

Bridget Reif of MAC’s response: “There has been no request so the answer is ‘no’”. This should sound an alarm in everyone’s head; there is no request so “no”, there are no plans for a 6,000 foot runway at the Flying Cloud airport because no one has requested it.

What MAC should have said: No, there will no 6,000 foot runways at FC; there is a law that limits all minor airports to 5,000 foot runways and there is no deviating from that law. MAC sees no need to enlarge any of its minor airport or to spend any money on minor airport expansions beyond our current plans because we already have a major airport, one intermediate airport and five minor airports all located within a 30-mile radius of the center of the metro area.

Don’t be fooled - MAC has the space to put a 6,000 foot runway in at Flying Cloud. Yes, it looks a little “tight” for this to happen but you are getting a 5,000 foot runway with 2,500 feet on each end of that 5,000 foot runway as the “runway protection zone” (RPZ) so in effect, there is a runway with 10,000 foot of length and if it went to a 6,000 foot pave runway, it still does not need anything longer than that 10,000 foot of length (no lengthening of the RPZ zones on each end of a 6,000 foot runway).

It appears MAC also bought more land to the west – across Charlston Road. MAC “moved” a street on the east side of Anoka airport to accommodate the runway expansion and RPZ zone it needed when it built out our E/W runway from 4,000 feet to 5,000 feet in length in June 2007. Moving roads is no challenge to MAC. Pay attention to exact configuration of the land that MAC owns at FCM airport.

MAC is working on their LTCP Long Term Comprehensive Plan and will present it after the fact, the public will have no input. This is the “chance” for the public to have input into the LTCP process that MAC is undertaking – MAC does NOT bring the public in until the very end – after they have talked to the airports’ tenants and after they have talked to the cities. At these tenant/city meetings, they really say NOTHING – they don’t really tell anyone what is going to be in the plan so NO ONE has anything to “react” to. This is the same thing that is going to happen to residents when these public meetings are held this summer.

The format will encompass a bunch of separate areas around a room where citizens can “walk” around and talk to MAC people on a one-on-one basis. This is a plan, as far as I can tell, to limit a “crowd” mentality that lets everyone hear what everyone else is saying; stops us all from agreeing with a speaker; and stops us from really letting MAC know the COLLECTIVE views of the public.

MAC/FCAAC informational meeting long on disinformation.
One of the questions from a resident answered incorrectly by Rick King, chair of the Flying Cloud Airports Commission, was that there was no economic loss for the city because of the expansion. In fact, when acreage was bought by MAC the city lost around a million dollars a year in property taxes. More money was lost to businesses locally. There is no informational page on the city’s web site that gives out that kind of information. While the city is very interested in improving the airport’s web site and making it user friendly, they have not provided easy- to- find access to facts about the Final Agreement, the EIS, MAC’s commitments, and the city’s economic losses.

What was not explained by anyone, from the FAA, the city, MAC, not one of them is that the FAA is responsible for whatever happens AFTER the plane leaves the land. MAC is responsible for what happens on land. This means that a plane going away from its correct flight path is a FAA problem, not MAC’s. Flying too low is FAA’s problem, not MAC’s. And yet, MAC is taking on all of the noise complaints that are done IN THE AIR. I think we all need to make the FAA more accountable for the low flying, noisy aircraft that bothers us all. Or the FCAAC should be doing this. They are not.

IN FACT, IF the FAA becomes more uncomfortable by hearing about noise complaints and low flying aircraft, maybe the FAA will change some of ITS rules that it won’t restrict planes from flying during the dark of night or early morning hours.

This is what we hear from MAC: “We (MAC) took federal funds therefore we (MAC) have no control over aircraft flying at all hours of the day or night.” This is what MAC espouses when there are noise complaints from residents.


Athletic Fields here today, gone tomorrow-
If MAC can renege on their commitment to keep the runway at 5,000ft they can and will renege on anything they see fit. MAC is “allowing” the city to have an “athletic” and a park area on its land now. This is just a “place-holder” for them. Remember Rich Acres at MSP (the NW corner of MAC’s MSP land)? Rich Acres was a golf course on MAC’s airport land – it was there with a twenty-year lease. When that lease was up, MAC destroyed the golf course, put in a new SE to NW runway with cargo hangers in that area. Just where is FC’s “athletic/park” area? Could it be available for future runway lengthening at FC? For hanger space?

No one asked about the weight bearing capacity at FC airport. Why build out a 5,000 foot runway at 60,000 lbs. double wheel weight (and spend the money) if MAC even “thought” there might be a possibility of a 6,000 foot runway at FCM? Just a question to ask… On the other hand, with the “money” MAC seems to get, they could just add cement to the 5,000 foot runway and add another 1,000 feet at the 95,000 lbs wheel weight - the same thing they are planning for our AC/B airport.


Eden Prairie residents knowledgeable- they were concerned with the trees – landscaping will be a bare minimum because of bird strikes and the threat of incursions from animals. This is MAC’s land and for “safety” reasons, it really needs to be a barren piece of land. They can’t have aircraft landing on top of “hazards”. Also, they really need to get rid of the wildlife on the property. That is why the Office of the Interior responded to the expansion in the EIS, by commenting that “no alternative sites” had been considered because of the potential for bird strikes. The airport is adjacent the Minnesota River Wildlife Refuge.

It was interesting to hear that they cannot plant shrubbery to hide the fence because security has to make sure there are no “holes” in the fence for wildlife to pass through (they did not mention terrorists). MAC does not follow FAA guidelines and continues to leave gates open. This presents a considerably more serious risk. The FAA knows this, has advised airports to address open gates and MAC does nothing.

Noise and more noise...and EIS is necessary because there will be environmental impacts
For MAC, the technical all knowing experts to tell the public it won’t be nosier, that larger planes are less noisy, is about as dishonest as it gets. Projects like the FCM expansion can’t happen without an Environmental Assessment of Impacts. Unfortunately projects like these are rubber stamped too often despite the negative impacts to a community.

If MAC is trying to help the residents in its monitoring of noise then they should really spend the money. Chad Leveque of MAC implied it would be too expensive for an modular noise monitoring system to be built around the airport to measure sound – monitor noise levels. Chad said public funds cannot be spent on limiting sounds – can’t resist operations (per the 1990 Airport Noise Capacity Act – ANCA).

If noise contours are being updated on the current declining operations, they are not going to be accurate when flights are resumed. This means that the noise contours will be contracted so MAC will report that there are fewer homes being affected by noise. This will save MAC money if there should be any mitigation costs due to homeowners to insulate their homes from airport noise.


Noise considered a problem for the last five years, indicated by two previous surveys. But not the last survey which revealed NO indication of noise annoyances- When Eden Prairie talked about the city survey and the decline in number of residents protesting noise from the airport, it neglected to say that “there has been a decline in the number of operations at the FCM airport and this probably would be the reason for the decline in noise complaints.” But, noise complaints are up by more than half in comparison to the last five years, yet MAC says the only reason this is the case is because people know how to report via internet. MAC says most of the noise complaints are coming from two people.


The Property Value Debate- Who wins it?
The last resident to speak was a realtor who said property values drop near an airport. The resident stated that people who support airports say this does NOT happen. MAC’s representative responded by saying that maybe properties around MAJOR airports have some devaluation but this is not true around MSP. If you go back fifty years when World-Chamberlin was just a small “major” airport, the homes held their value but when the airport became MSP in the 1960’s the homes lost their value and yes, they have “held their value” since then at the same lower value they had back in the 60’s. If there were no airport near them, they would have a higher property value than they have with MSP nearby today.


Barbara Haake is a former Mounds View Representative to the Legislature. In 1999 Haake proposed a bill in the Legislature to limit Minor Runway lenghts to 4,000ft. Barbara is a member of Concerned Citizens of the North Metro (CCNM).