County looks at airport ordinance options

County commissioners took their first look Thursday at options for 2010 ballot language designed to bring Minden-Tahoe Airport into federal compliance and reflect the community's desire to maintain the "rural character" of the general aviation facility.

"What you've done here is establish a preliminary fence around the issue," said Commissioner Greg Lynn. "This is not the end of the line for the options."

Assistant County Manager Steve Mokrohisky said the intent of options presented Thursday was to consider the community's wishes and comply with Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

"There are no preconceived conditions on which options are the best," Mokrohisky said. "We need to focus on these two goals."

He said the options were formulated following 16 community meetings with many more scheduled before final language is brought back to the board in December for adoption. The airport received a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration on April 9 stating the county must change the airport facility directory, airport master record and airport layout plan to replace inaccurate information about weight limits.

The reports must reflect the accurate weight limits of 60,000 pounds single-wheel and 75,000 pounds dual-wheel for airport runway 16-34.

If the county doesn't comply, the airport faces discontinued federal funding for airport operations and maintenance; possibility of a federal court case with the FAA; a requirement to continue operating the airport at its current level for the next 20 years without government funding; increased fees and a potential requirement to repay all the federal grant money for continued discrimination against heavier aircraft.

Prior to the airport ballot issue discussion, commissioners reviewed a report that an FAA grant for an airport improvement project was reduced from $789,474 to $105,000 due to noncompliance.

"In general, it's fair to say comments have been mixed," Mokrohisky said. "People support the airport's need to stay in compliance. Concerns include the economic impact, noise and taxiway strength."

He said a number of residents don't believe the issue is real, that the county needs to challenge the FAA position and engineering studies.

With the assistance of the district attorney's office and taking public comments into consideration, Mokrohisky and Airport Manager Keith Kallman outlined three options.

Options A and B increase weight limits to 60,000 pounds single-wheel and 75,000 pounds dual-wheel.

Option C introduces new language that bans operations that exceed the weight-bearing capacity as published in the airport facilities directory and calls for a voluntary noise curfew and noise study.

Jennifer Ware, a member of the Vanguard Coalition, took exception to the county's characterization that the issue was that the "current weight ordinance does not comply with federal regulations and any changes need to be approved by the voters in 2010."

"I think the focus ought to be how do we comply with the will of the voters, not how do we make the FAA happy," Ware said.

"You could have said '50,000 pounds, that's it,' and everybody would be happy," Ware said.

Jim Herd congratulated county staff for progress in the issue.

"One point that is not detailed in these slides is that there is not a single member of the Airport Advisory Committee who is an independent thinker who represents the will of the people," he said.

That drew a comment from County Manager Michael Brown.

"I'm concerned about the AAC members being characterized as not being independent thinkers. It's not a very nice thing to say. I think they are very independent. If you have a comment to make about somebody, you ought to say it to their face," Brown said.

In a lengthy e-mail late Thursday, Herd apologized for hurt feelings, but stood by his statement.

"My intent was to state the facts - the 800-pound gorilla in the room, so to speak. I made no derogatory comments about any individual and had no malice in my heart. I would have been happy to clarify my meaning right there and then if asked, but I was not asked," Herd said.

"The criticism in my comments was aimed squarely at the Board of County Commissioners' appointment decisions, which have clearly not yielded proper representation on this important committee. And this problem is pervasive, not isolated," he said.

COUNTY TIMETABLE

Residents have several opportunities to comment on language for the November 2010 ballot question on the Minden-Tahoe Airport weight ordinance:

n August-October: Public workshops to be scheduled in Johnson Lane, Minden, Gardnerville, Indian Hills, Sunridge, Topaz and Lake Tahoe, as well as several additional outreach meetings with community organizations to collect comments on draft options for ballot language.

n Nov. 5: Board public hearing to potentially present draft language, based on public input.

n November: Additional public meeting to present final draft language to public.

n Dec. 3: Board public hearing to potentially adopt final language.

n March-July 2010: Approximate timeline for pro/con committees to develop position statements.

n July 2010: Ballot question and associated arguments due to Clerk/Treasurer's Office.

n November 2010: Douglas County voters will cast ballots.

ON THE WEB

Douglas County Web site

www.douglascountynv.gov