Agenda Packets - 1999/04/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mar-31-99 01:10pm From-KENNEDY A GRAVEN +6123379310 T-098 P.07/08 F-823 c0981989 Court of Appeals Page 4 of 5 use' airport." The maximum length for a minor use airport runway had been set at 5,000 feet two months earlier in MC's Aviation Development Guide/Policy Plan.L11 Extending the runway to 5,000 feet is now consistent with the development of Airport as "minor use." Moreover,Minn. Stat. § 473.146, subd. 1 (1998), requires MC to "adopt a long-range comprehensive policy plan for* * airports." This statutory obligation is not subject to a stipulation between City and MAC. The parties' prior relationship as exemplified by the 1986 stipulation does not support granting the injunction. 2.Balance of Harm Because City did not show that it would suffer any irreparable harm without the injunction and both MC and MAC are prevented from fulfilling their statutory duties by the injunction,this factor also weighs against the injunction. 3. Likelihood of Success on the Merits The district court found that City is likely to succeed on the merits because extending the runway would violate either Minn. Stat. § 473.641, subd. 4(1998)or the July 1986 court order. The evidence does not support this finding. Minn. Stat. § 473.641, subd.4, forbids MAC to expand or upgrade the use of an existing metropolitan airport from minor use to intermediate use status as defined by the metropolitan development guide, aviation chapter' * This subdivision was added in 1980, when the maximum runway length for minor use airports was 4,000 feet. But the subdivision clearly provides that the definitions of"the metropolitan development guide,aviation chapter" are controlling. Neither the subdivision nor any other statute defines minor use airports in terms of maximum runway length; there is no indication that the legislature ever intended runway length to be established by statute rather than by MC and MAC. III Extending the runway to 5,000 feet will not violate the statute. Nor will the extension violate the July 1986 order,which did not permanently establish the length of the runway and does not supercede MC's duty to develop long-range plans for airports. Absent violation of the statute or court order,City is unlikely to succeed on the merits. This factor weighs against the temporary injunction. 4.Public Policy The district court found that public policy regarding minor use airports is clearly set forth in the statutes.We agree,but nonetheless conclude that public policy does not support enjoining MC and MAC from performing their statutory duties.See,e.g., Minn. Stat. §473.146, subd. 1 (requiring MC to adopt a long-range comprehensive policy plan for airports);Minn. Stat. § 473.608, subd. 27 (1998)(requiring MAC to develop and implement a plan to transfer flights from the main airport to reliever airports). hup://www.courts.state.nuLusiopinionsicoa/current/c0981989.huni 3/31/99