EDITOR:
Controversy continues to surround the airport and the November ballot question for voters to approve a new airport ordinance, which raises aircraft weight limits from the 30,000 pounds maximum approved in 1984 and 50,000 pounds approved in 1992 to whatever the FAA says it is, currently at 75,000 pounds.
I thought I'd talk it over with my old friend Bo the Builder. We met at our favorite Minden coffee emporium.
"Bo," I greeted, "how're you going to vote on the November ballot question for a new airport ordinance?"
"Thought you might help me decide," replied Bo. "Didn't they blister you for suggesting a mystery novel about behind-the-scenes airport shenanigans?"
"They did, and that was before the newest disputes erupted. Based on hearsay, county management and the district attorney shut down refueling operations of the oldest established glider operator, practically forcing them out of business, because of some arcane rules that don't make a lot of sense for a small back-country airport, although they had a previous exemption. It incidentally gives the other fuel service a monopoly. And gives this small rural but internationally-acclaimed glider base a public black eye, which being one of the Valley's vaunted tourist attractions can't be good for business."
Bo chuckled, "Sounds like more grist for your would-be novel all right. Am I correct in perceiving you don't like the proposed airport ordinance?"
"You'd be correct," I grinned. "It puts taxpayers contingently on the hook for millions more in airport spending. Did you know that 70 percent of the over $18 million in FAA grants were spent in just the past 10 years? It took them 30 or more prior years to spend the other 30 percent. And taxpayers unknowingly guaranteed to maintain anything built with FAA money for its useful life up to 20 years. FAA revenue is falling in the current economy, they don't guarantee to fund maintenance, so taxpayers are potentially liable."
"Good fodder there all right," Bo rejoined, "you're concluding that runway maintenance costs went up as planes using the airport got bigger in recent years. But how come if the paving supports 75,000 pounds maintenance costs are rising?"
"Clearly a conundrum," I said gleefully, "for my mystery novel to resolve. Nobody explains. They just get temperamental. Rumor has it a local airport engineering consultant challenged the 75,000 pound capacity to the FAA."
"Anything else about that ordinance I should know?" asked Bo.
"It's far too wordy, words a good corporate lawyer could blow gaping holes through. Its prohibition of new infrastructure is weasel-worded, it should have blocked it altogether. Penalties for overweight planes are chump change to millionaire jet owners and too little to pay for any paving damage. The airport manager gets too much discretion for allowing overweight landings. It moves glider operations to the east side at a cost of $6 million and authorizes all pavement to be upgraded to FAA-approved capacity, all at financial risk to taxpayers."
"Enough already," laughed Bo. "Let's send it back to the drawing board."
Jack Van Dien
Minden
