Concerned Citizens of
the North Metro (CCNM)
This is our country, and the public is us!

Please click on the following links to
read the latest updates:
        By MICHELLE LEDER
       NEW YORK TIMES
       Published: March 31, 2010















     It shows the path a jet would take over
  Centerville and identifies the FAA noise
  monitoring points and values for a
  Gulfstream II on approach and take off.


   Planners are taking into considerations
  public safety vs. economic development
  in downtown St. Paul.  
  By CHRIS HAVENS, Star Tribune
  Last update: May 19, 2009 - 11:07 AM

















  • City of Eden Prairie:

Update on Anoka County-Blaine Airport –
Two concurrent plans underway for the future of the AC/B airport written by  
Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)

By Barbara Haake, trubador2@msn.com
March 31, 2010

Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), with its Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Anoka County-Blaine Airport (ANE), and
Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP)  go through a review/adoption process by both the MAC and the Met Council.   

“Metropolitan Council Aviation Planning:  The Council prepares and updates the aviation system plan for the Twin City area and reviews the long-range
plans and capital budget of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC).  The MAC operates Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and the
region’s smaller general aviation airports.  The Council coordinates aviation planning and development activities with local, state and federal
governmental units, airport users and citizens.”

Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) (www.metroairports.org) – Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for Anoka County-Blaine Airport
(designated ANE by MAC and CCNM has been referring to it as AC/B Airport) is drafted by MAC, adopted by its board and adopted by the
Metropolitan Council.  (The Met Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) is not adopted by the MAC.)  

Please find MAC’s proposed 2010 LTCP plan for AC/B (ANE) Airport at www.metroairports.org/relievers/docs/pdf/comp_plans/anoka/anoka.aspx
(Contact person:  Bridget Rief; 612.725.8371).

In MAC’s LTCP (Proposed Update) November 2009 for Anoka County-Blaine Airport (ANE), refer to Chapter 4.1; Page 30  “Airport Expansion –
Runways and Hanger Areas”.

Chapter 4.1.1 “Additional Runways” on Page 30:
“Past LTCP’s for ANE have recommended parallel runways (two runways N/S and two runways E/W), showing forecasts that indicated a future need for
additional capacity.  MAC believes it is appropriate to continue to show the possibility of two additional runways as a concept in the comprehensive plan,
and that they should continue to be considered in future LTCP updates even though likely beyond this current 20-year planning period.  See Figure 4-
1.”   (I could not locate Figure 4-1 in this website.)

(This chapter means that the same plans for two parallel N/S runways and two parallel E/W runways at the AC/B airport that have been in MAC’s plans
for the past 40 years will remain in its plans. Envision a tic-tac-toe layout for the AC/B airport.)

Chapter 4.1.2 “Runway Extension” on Page 31:
“Data retrieved to analyze the runway extension request indicated there are aircraft operating at ANE (Anoka County-Blaine Airport) that either reduce
fuel or passenger loads in order to operate safely at ANE with the existing 5,000 feet (5,000-foot E/W runway).  There does not appear to be a significant
number of these operations, and there are certainly not enough operations by these types of aircraft to consider them as the design critical aircraft (more
than 500 operations in a year).  There is no demonstrated need, and therefore, an alternative examining a longer runway is not included in this
document.  While no runway extension will be included as a development concept in this LTCP update, it is expected that a similar request may be
submitted and studied at some point in the future.”  
(This section goes on to list the items that would be needed to consider a runway extension beyond the existing E/W runway length of 5,000 feet.  It is
important for all of us to see the items that Key Air or another petitioner would have to fulfill to get a 6,000-foot runway at the AC/B airport.  With AC/B’
s 1,900 acres of land, a 6,000-foot runway request could be possible.  Perhaps not today in these tough economic times, but who knows what the future
will hold?)  
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) will have its Anoka County-Blaine (ANE) Long-Term Comprehensive Plan  (LTCP) before the Metropolitan
Council for adoption on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 4:00 p.m., 390 Robert Street North, St. Paul, MN, 55101.  

METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (www.metcouncil.org)   (Aviation contact person: Chauncey Case 651.602.1724)

The Metropolitan Council passed their 2008 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) on January 14, 2009   In its Chapter 10:  Air Transportation (Page 165 of
the plan), found at  (www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TPP/2008/Ch10Aviation.pdf), the Met Council stated:
“This Twin City regional aviation system plan consists of the first of two updates.  This Phase I incorporates a revised air transportation element into its
2030 Transportation Policy Plan, updating and replacing the 1996 Aviation Policy Plan.  Phase II, to be completed in the 2008-2009 time period, involves
a full technical evaluation of the aviation system plan, including updated forecasts, with amendments to this Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) in 2010 as
warranted.”

The Phase II plan for transportation and aviation was undertaken by the Metropolitan Council’s hired consultants, Wilber Smith Associates in the middle
of 2009.  The technical report from Wilbur Smith Associates was released at the beginning of 2010.  It can be found at:                                                          
www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/2030AviationSystemTechRpt.pdf

Met Council’s Wilbur Smith’s technical report discussed new minor airport classifications as Minor I (airports with runways up to 4,500 feet in length)
and Minor II (runways from 4,500 feet to 6,000 feet in length) airports for the Twin City regional airport system.  In the end/summary of the Wilbur
Smith report, it did not recommend changing the current minor airport definition but the justification/discussion of Minor I and Minor II airports was not
removed from its technical report.  Minor I and Minor II are still in the technical report.  

It has been promised by the Metropolitan Council staff (and I testified at a Metropolitan Council meeting of the staff’s promise) that the Wilbur Smith
Associates’ technical report is going to “sit on the shelf” and that there would be no mention of Minor I and Minor II airport classifications in the final
Met Council’s Phase II document that will update the Met Council’s January 14, 2009 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP).  

We will need to monitor this.

As we all know, minor airports are defined in law (MS473.641.Subd.4) not to exceed 5,000-foot runway lengths.  There cannot be a change in the minor
airport definition without a change in the law.

In May 2000 a new law (MS473.641, Subd.4) was passed.  It stated: “…construction of air facilities to expand or upgrade the use of an existing
metropolitan airport from minor use to intermediate use status without approval in a law. For the purposes of this section, a minor use airport is defined
as an airport with a runway or runways of length no longer than 5,000 feet".

DATES to Remember:

The Phase II aviation update will be incorporated into the current Metropolitan Council’s TPP and will be up for review and public comment in late
summer, early fall 2010.  

Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) will have its Anoka County-Blaine (ANE) Long-Term Comprehensive Plan  (LTCP) before the Metropolitan
Council for its adoption on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 4:00 p.m., 390 Robert Street North, St. Paul, MN, 55101.  I expect it to get approved without
any opposition or comments.

The AC/B Advisory Commission's meeting will held on Wednesday, June 16th.  

   
                                                                                  



The below it is from our friends at Eden Prairie (Flying Cloud Airport).  Anoka County- Blaine Airport and Flying Cloud are being proposed by a
Metropolitan Council subcommittee to be designated as Minor II airports without stating maximum Minor II runway limits.  The proposed 2030 Met
Council plan states Intermediate airports will start with runways at 6,000 feet long changing the current definition that Intermediate airports have
runways 5,000 feet long to 8,000 feet long to 6,000 feet to 8,000 feet long.  This leads one to believe that Minor II airports will have runways up to 6,000
feet in length.  

If this proposal is accepted by the full Metropolitan Council and approved by MAC it will then go to the Legislature to change the existing law for Minor
II airports from a runway maximum length of 5,000 feet to 6,000.   

  Met Council's 2030 Aviation Plans Include Redesignation of Flying CLoud Airport as
 Minor II facility
   MET COUNCIL'S CONSULTANTS OMIT MAX RUNWAY LIMIT FOR MINOR II AIRPORT  

The Met Council placed Flying Cloud Airport (and Anoka County-Blaine Airport) into the new Minor II category in their draft report. They say once the
airport has 5,000ft it will  become a Minor II airport.

Of course the drawback is that the State Legislature recognizes Flying Cloud and Anoka County-Blaine as a Minor airports with a limit of 5,000ft.

The new Minor II redesignation in the Met Council's 2030 Aviation Plan puts the airport at minimum runway length of 4,500ft and gives no maximum.

They would have to go and change the law to make FCM and AN/B airport officially Minor II airports.

You have to ask yourself how a government agency could hire consultants, produce miles of paper, charts, graphs and number comparisons and not
include the maximum runway lengths?

By all indications, the documents spelled trouble and make an illogical, contradictory case for the expansion of some relievers and the addition of
another reliever.

Despite saying that MSP does not require any more capacity and its based airlines are actually rerouting aircraft to other hubs leaving ample room for
growth, they state that the MAC's mandate is to reroute smaller traffic away from MSP.

The aviation downturn is trending long term and that includes commercial and non-commercial corporate operations, despite this they say there will be
growth in micro jets and VLJs.

But guess what? Neither of these aircraft require a 5,000ft runway.

Small planes, small airports. That's the new expansion plan. According to the Met Council MSP is finished expanding.

The idea is we'll all buy one of these microjets or VLJs like an air taxi and jet off in our 400 mile an hour flying SUV.

The problem is the FAA certification for these new types of aircraft was so recent and now the manufacturers are in bankruptcy and or have shut their
doors, aren't hiring, well you get the picture. They are so new there are no concrete numbers indicating whether we need to factor them in as legit
operations requiring a longer runway.  Which of course they don't need. That's just one of the contradictions.

BTW, both industries/GA and major airlines are in the dumps and the only qualifiers that the Met Council's consultants are looking at are projections.

As for MAC? They have a committment to Eden Prairie not to expand, so they're staying in the background and letting the Met Council take the heat.
However they've been part of the process, and they're definitely crossing the line--their legal committment not to support a further extension.

Do they really think we believe for a minute that the MAC had nothing to do with the aviation planning and it's only the MET COUNCIL who is going to
put pressure on the legislature to change the law?

Their own spokesperson said in a Star Tribune article, that the MAC has a process in place to lengthen runways with the legislature; the Met Council
said that only MAC is responsible for the change in runway length in the same article.

So, you think we lost the 5,000ft battle, and now we're done?

Well, the battle is far from over. And remember what we've always told you: when you have an airport in your midst, you have a problem that does not go
away.

 Microjet/VLJ article - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14015732/

  Flying Magazine says microjets won't have the safety record of business/corporate jets which are less safe than commercial jets.

How much are they? Microjets cost around $1.5 million. And that would not include the pilot, maintenance, gas and all. You  can buy fractions of an
aircraft and not put out that kind of money..but which one of us has that kind of money in the first place?

What's more concerning is to think of what the sky over our community would look like with many of our neighbors in flying SUVs dotting the skies with
voluntary restrictions.

It is referred to as Highways in the Sky. And the FAA has had it on their drawing board for years.

DO WE WANT A HIGHWAY IN OUR SKY?



         
                  Key Air Withdraws Request for Longer Runway at Anoka County-Blaine Airport
          Withdrawal Means Runway Extension Won’t Be Considered in Planning Process

MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL – Fixed-base operator Key Air notified the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) today it is withdrawing its
March 19 request for a runway extension at Anoka County-Blaine Airport.

Key Air had requested that MAC consider expanding Runway 9-27 to 6,000 feet from the current 5,000 and increase its double-wheel
oad bearing capacity to 95,000 pounds, up from the current 60,000.  The MAC had asked Key Air to provide additional information to   
determine whether or not a study of the matter was justified as part of the airport’s long term comprehensive planning process.

In withdrawing its request, Key Air indicated that, given the current business climate, this was probably not the time to invest in
expansion of the runway beyond its current 5,000 feet.
“Absent a request from an airport tenant, we are aware of no operational need that would warrant consideration of a longer runway at
Anoka County-Blaine Airport at this time,” said Denny Probst, the MAC’s deputy executive director for Planning and Environment.
“We believe sufficient facilities are in place to safely accommodate current operations, so we will not consider a runway extension a
part of the long-term planning process.”

Through a unique partnership with Anoka County and the city of Blaine, the MAC has made a number of significant improvements to  
the airport in recent years, including extending Runway 9-27 to its current 5,000 feet, lengthening the adjoining taxiway, installing an
instrument landing system, and developing the building area now occupied by Key Air’s new terminal and hangar facilities.

The Metropolitan Council classifies Anoka County-Blaine as a minor-use airport, a category Minnesota law limits to runway lengths of
no more than 5,000 feet.

Patrick Hogan
Public Affairs & Marketing Director
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Phone: 612-726-5335




                                            Opposition, economy killed runway project at Blaine airport
                                    Key Air CEO says the Anoka County-Blaine Airport extension
                                                                doesn't make sense - for now

By MARIA ELENA BACA,
Star Tribune
Last update: June 6, 2009 - 9:47 PM

The volume of the opposition had everything to do with Key Air's decision to withdraw its request for an extended runway at the
Anoka County-Blaine Airport, said President and CEO Brad Kost.

Combined with the sour economy, the project just didn't seem worthwhile -- now.

"This is such a distraction from where our major focus should be," he said. "Based upon the reaction from the local community and
the distraction to our local businesses, the environment is not right for this right now. ... What we need to do is keep the business
open and running and really start to build for the future."

On Thursday, the Oxford, Conn.-based aviation company withdrew its request that Metropolitan Airports Commission look into
increasing the east-west runway length from 5,000 to 6,000 and the load-bearing capacity to allow for larger business jets.

Still, Kost and the residents opposed to any extension agree that the issue isn't dead, and both are gearing up for the day when the
issue comes back.

Kost, whose company is one of a handful of fixed base operators at the airport, maintains that safety issues remain when larger
business jets -- think Gulfstream -- need to land on a 5,000-foot runway, especially in inclement weather. For many aircraft, 5,000 feet
doesn't allow for much of a margin of error, he said.

Barbara Haake, co-chairwoman of Concerned Citizens of the North Metro, which opposed any extension, doesn't buy it.
"Once they get 6,000, they're going to want seven and they're going to want eight and it's all going to be couched in safety," she said,
noting that another 3,000 feet of space is there, even if it's not designated runway space.

She and others maintain that an extension would bring increased traffic and ever-larger planes. She agrees that safety is key,
although her group approaches the issue differently. In a conversation Friday, Haake recalled the 2001 story of a Mounds View garage
destroyed by a falling airplane, less than half a mile from the airport.

"We do have safety issues and always will have them when you have homes right alongside of [the airport]," she said. "It could have
gone into a home and injured more people."

Kost sounded genuinely distressed by the tenor of the discussion. City councils in Lino Lakes , Lexington , Mounds View and Circle
Pines have passed resolutions in opposition to any extension. Blaine was set to discuss a similar resolution on Thursday night before
the Key Air announcement was made.

"My concern is now we've got a lot of individuals out there and a lot of communities that really feel the airport is not a good neighbor,
and that's absolutely not the case," he said. "It's too bad. The major tragedy about this is that this runway extension would have
created lots of highly needed jobs for the community. ... Stimulus money would have been available, and that may not be the case
when we revisit it down the road."

Still, Kost, who has been criticized widely for trying to move a proposal through without community input, said he will do things
differently next time.

"I probably would do roundtables with community members, municipalities, people in housing communities adjacent to the airport," he
said. "I would like to sit down and explain our objectives ahead of time. ... I would welcome any type of discussion with anybody at any
time that would help them understand who we are and what we are and what we're trying to accomplish."

He acknowledged, though, that this probably wasn't the time to push hard on the proposal. This is the second time since last fall that
public opposition has grounded Key Air's attempt at a runway extension.

"Right now the economic conditions in the Twin Cities area have deteriorated pretty dramatically," he said. "Worse than that is the
economic conditions of aviation in the Twin Cities."

Others noted that no one can predict the future, or how an improved airport would affect business development in the area. Already,
the airport has been upgraded with approach lighting, an instrument landing system and other infrastructure improvements.

As it is, representatives from some of the area's heavy hitters -- Aveda, Infinite Campus and the National Sports Center -- said they
don't use the Anoka County airport much. And its draw to potential investors is impossible to quantify.

"The airport is a tool and an asset for marketing to businesses that may benefit from that," said Blaine City Manager Clark Arneson.
"Frankly right now I don't know what an additional 1,000 feet means from an economic development standpoint. That's part of the
discussion that would come forward."

But Kost maintains that's not the only reason to do it.

"The most important thing for me is that it's safety," he said. "We're defying gravity every day. That's what we do with these aircraft."

Maria Elena Baca • 612-673-4409


                                                      


                                          Key Air pulls controversial airport runway request

   Friday, 05 June 2009
  by Tim Hennagir
  Life Editor

Key Air LLC, an executive charter company based at the Anoka County-Blaine Airport , has withdrawn its comprehensive planning
request for a controversial east-west runway extension.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) was verbally notified Thursday (June 4) that the company wanted its March 19 written
request removed from official consideration.

“They did not have time to put anything in writing,” said Patrick Hogan, the MAC’s public affairs and marketing director, who issued a
news release.

Key Air had requested the MAC consider expanding Runway 9-27 to 6,000 feet and increase the east-west runway’s double-wheel
capacity to 95,000 pounds.

The runway is currently rated at 60,000 pounds. The MAC had asked for additional information to determine whether or not a study of
the matter was justified.

The Metropolitan Council classifies Anoka County-Blaine as a minor-use airport and current Minnesota law limits to minor runway
lengths to no more than 5,000 feet.

Dennis Probst, the MAC’s planning and environmental deputy executive director, said sufficient airport facilities exist to safely meet
current operations.

“We will not consider a runway extension as part of our long-term planning,” he said in MAC release, adding in a interview the comp
plan would stay status quo.

Hogan confirmed Thursday that Brad Kost, Key Air’s chief executive officer and president, had contacted Gary Schmidt, the MAC’s
director of reliever airports.

According to Schmidt, while Kost didn’t provide a specific reason for withdrawing the request, the current downturn in general
aviation was a discussion point.

“The timing was just not right to pursue a 6,000-foot runway,” Schmidt said Thursday.

Key’s Air request removal speeds up the comp plan process, he said.

Kost said in a telephone interview Thursday afternoon that nationwide, the general aviation industry has lost 12,000 sector jobs
during the last six months.

“Right now, Key Air wants to focus on rebuilding our business and protecting our employees and investment at the Anoka County-   
Blaine Airport,” Kost said.

Kost admitted current opposition to the proposed runway expansion played a role in the company’s decision. However, he said the
company wasn’t giving up.

“At some point down the road, we still want the extension,” Kost said. “If and when that time comes, we will sit down with the cities
involved and explain things.”

Barbara Haake is a former state legislator, current Mounds View resident and one of the lead organizers of Concerned Citizens of the
North Metro (CCNM).

The grassroots organization formed earlier this year to oppose any proposed runway expansion at the Anoka County airport or any
classification change.

“We are thrilled and happy to see this, but we still have reservations,” Haake said in an interview. She wanted assurances about
future airport planning.

Haake was referring to comp plans prepared by the Metropolitan Council and the MAC. “We need to have any future threat of a longer
runway laid to rest for 40 years,” she said.

The MAC has been recognized as a “very good” seven-county area agency, but Haake said statewide aviation planning would be
better model to support.

Blaine City Manager Clark Arneson said Thursday afternoon the city had reviewed the MAC press release confirming Key Air was
withdrawing its runway request.

“This dramatically changes the issue,” Arneson said during a Blaine City Council workshop Thursday. Citizens opposing airport
expansion were in attendance at the meeting.

Arneson said the action by Key Air would maintain the MAC’s 2030 comprehensive plan for the Anoka County-Blaine Airport as a
“status quo” document.

Thursday’s night, council members had been scheduled to review a draft resolution opposing a change in airport classification from
minor to intermediate.

The council resolution also contained language that opposed legislative efforts to upgrade the airport’s classification at the state,
regional or federal level.

Prior to discussion, Arneson said that Councilmember Dick Swanson wanted to present a revised resolution that specifically
addressed Key Air’s request.

Arneson recommended the council indefinitely table the draft resolution. He said in 1999, the city had previously passed a resolution
against classification.

Furthermore, Arneson said language in Blaine ’s adopted comprehensive plan clearly addressed the city’s position regarding the
airport’s status.

“The comprehensive plan is the strongest document we have,” he said. “It’s a legal document as opposed to a policy statement
contained in a resolution.”

With Key Air’s withdrawal of its request Arneson said there are no current public or private proposals for a longer runway with more
weight capacity.

Councilmember Mike Bourke asked if the MAC could revive a runway improvement plan at a future date.

Arneson’s reply restated the MAC’s news release. “The MAC is saying two things,” he said. “First  there’s no current proposal and    
second, the airport is operating OK with the infrastructure that’s in place.”

Councilmember Wes Hovland asked if in the future if the city could amend its comprehensive plan to specifically address runway
requests like Key Air’s.

Arneson recommended against such action.

Typically, comprehensive plans are general planning documents that don’t contain such detailed content, he told the city council.

Councilmember Dave Clark said the city’s current comp plan addressed the city’s policy position and would carry more weight with the
Met Council.

“We simply dodged a bullet here,” Clark said. He was making a point Key Air’s removal of its MAC comp plan request placed the issue
in a temporary holding pattern.

Clark suggested a change in the petition procedure used by local government entities (cities and the county) before requests were
submitted to the MAC.

Councilmember Katherine Kolb agreed with Arneson that the comp plan was “much stronger” from a policy standpoint as opposed to
a new resolution.

Mayor Tom Ryan said he wanted Key Air’s comp plan request to be honored by the MAC because such an action would have resulted
in true transparency.

“I wished it would have come through,” Ryan said. “Then, we would have really seen what this is all about. We would have known
more about the facts.”

Councilmember Russ Herbst said Key Air’s decision had ended the issue for the time being. “It’s over for now,” he said. “We can
bring up a resolution next year.”

Clark requested staff research ways to amend the petition procedure and suggested Arneson report Key Air’s decision during the
council’s regular meeting.

Lexington City Council member John (Jack) Plasch spoke at open forum after Arneson read portions of the MAC news release the city
had received.

Plasch wanted the city to still approve a resolution. He said it was important for Blaine to support surrounding that had passed similar
council resolutions.

Lino Lakes , Lexington , Mounds View and Circle Pines have passed city resolutions that strongly state opposition against
development of longer runways

“Why can’t the council vote on this resolution and join the other communities? “ Plasch asked. “Even though Key Air withdrew, they
will be coming back.”

Ryan restated the council’s concurrence during the workshop, that comp plan language would supersede a resolution. “It’s as clear
as a bell,” Ryan said.

Tim Hennagir is at editor.blaineslplife@ecm-inc.com.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it