Zero Expansion/talktrans is a non-political homeowners’ group fighting the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport. We will continue to support candidates based on their opposition to expansion of the airport, not on their political affiliation. The change in our policy is we will actively support/endorse/campaign for candidates who share our views.

It is our belief that Eden Prairie needs a Mayor, Council Members and local legislators who do not support airport expansion at FCM and would be open to looking at alternative uses for the airport property in the future. The reuse option was prompted by MAC’s recent reevaluation of the reliever airport system, which could include closing some of the relievers and or changing management of the relievers at some time in the future.

Reuse of airport sites, which is happening nationally, is due to an over abundance of reliever airports, and a diminishing Aviation Trust Fund. Reuse of FCM is a major policy change for Zero Expansion; we’ve adopted this change in policy because of MAC’s reevaluation of the reliever system, aviation industry changes and future land use opportunities that have an economical and environmental upside for Eden Prairie. This policy change is largely attributable to the following:

1. MAC is reevaluating the reliever airport system (which includes Flying Cloud Airport, FCM in Eden Prairie.(Eden Prairie Sun, February 2005 article)
   What that means is ultimately MAC could implement different options which could
   result in the following actions:
   
   
   1. MAC could close some of the relievers in the future (they would need FAA and state legislative authority to do so).
      
      
   2. MAC could go to the legislature/Met Council to change the reliever mandate and have each reliever owned? operated independently by reliever cities themselves. (The city of EP does not want to own or operate FCM.)
      
      
   3. MAC could go to the legislature to request that an outside management company run the relievers. (The MAC is mandated to run the relievers by the Met Council and legislature.) Would outside management be bound by the agreements MAC has made with individual reliever airport cities such as the Final Agreement between the city and EP?
      
      
   4. MAC has yet to show they can make the relievers self-sufficient. The relievers have been subsidized by hidden fees in parking and concessions at MSP. Though MAC has always stated they have the authority to tax but have never used it, the fact is they’ve been taxing us all along with out our direct knowledge.
      
      
2. Why is MAC reevaluating the Reliever Airports?
   
   NWA has uncovered the extent at which the MAC has been subsidizing the relievers out of MSP revenues. NWA says they should be pumped back into the major hub. Ultimately these hidden fees, subsidies, should not be taken out of the pockets of users of MSP. Operators of the relievers have had a free ride for the last 30 years because rates have never been increased. They’ve been subsidized by hidden fees the public pays through parking, and concessions, as well as government protectionism and additional financial benefits through industry exemptions and more hidden user fees/taxes. The free ride is over and the free- riders are bucking the new reality of paying higher rates/charges. The reasons are multifold:
   
   
   1. The Airport and Airways Trust Fund (Trust Fund) that pays for infrastructure and Capital Improvements (CIP) is diminishing. This is due in part to fluctuating demand in air travel, primarily due to external events such as 9-11, health epidemics such as SARS, the national deficit, higher fuel prices, lower ticket prices, maintenance, and the ever-increasing expense of new infrastructure, all have played a part in depleting the fund.
      
      
   2. The Trust Fund revenues have not kept up with expenditures. Because of this the FAA will be able to fund ATC, Air Traffic Control but not some AIP, Airport improvement Plan and F&E (Facilities and Equipment) activities. (GAO Report May 4, 2005)
      
      
   3. This picture of reduced funds and deficits does not bode well for expanding small heavily subsidized airports that don’t have an impact on the national/global economy.
      
      
3. What is Eden Prairie’s position?
   
   The city gave up its opposition to the airport expansion for a legal agreement for assurances to protect the community. The agreement could now be impacted by recent changes in FAA policy and rules, as well as MAC’s reevaluation of the reliever system. An EP Council Member brought forward a motion at the June 7th council meeting to address MAC’s reevaluation of the relievers and changes in FAA policy by proactively arranging a meeting of top MAC and Eden Prairie staff to discuss these issues. The council member will bring this motion up at the June 21st meeting for a vote, to give city staff the authority to meet with MAC openly to discuss all these new issues.
   
   
4. Why is it important for the city to meet with MAC staff now?
   
   The city spent considerable city funds to work with MAC on a mutual agreement once MAC eliminated a pre-existing Ordinance. The city is acting responsibly by taking the action now to assess the current situation. In view of all the changes taking place: reevaluation of the relievers and new FAA policies and rules, the city must be proactive by having an active voice in this process, which ultimately could have an impact on their constituents. Zero Expansion/talktrans supports this move to be actively involved, rather than be uninvolved and reactive.
   
   
5. Political Environment-
   
   One of Eden Prairie’s legislators, two Council Members and the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce have supported the expansion. NATA, National Air Transportation Association and the AOPA, Airline Operators and Pilots Association have lobbied the city for more support for the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport. The city has not acquiesced to their lobbying efforts to elicit the city’s support of the expansion.
   
   
6. Why is the city of Eden Prairie against the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport?
   

1. The city and county lose a considerable tax base and revenue from developmental
   use of property, as well as the ability to retain more open recreational spaces for public use.
   
   
2. The EP assessor’s economic indicators show that revenues from mixed
   development of the property, including open spaces, far surpasses the revenue
   generated by airport use to both the county and city.
   
   
3. Though the city retains access to ball fields through the final agreement, and a
   monetary inducement, ultimately the expansion could have a detrimental impact
   on property values due to noise and environmental impacts, as well as put an
   end to the opportunity to create open spaces, and mixed use development in one
   the most expensive undeveloped pieces of property in the Metro area.
   
   
4. MAC must uphold one of the most important commitments they made to the city which
   is a pavement based weight restriction of 60,000lbs. The city made a request in three
   letters sent to MAC, one in 2004 and two in 2005 inquiring whether MAC
   could uphold this weight based pavement limitation. MAC has not responded to one of
   those letters. Zero Expansion sent MAC a Data Practices Request and the FAA and
   FOIA request for that information in June 2005.