After more than 40 meetings over nine months, county officials believe they have the language for an ordinance that meets two goals: Reflects community desire for use of the Minden-Tahoe Airport and is in compliance with federal guidelines.
Assistant County Manager Steve Mokrohisky presented the language for the November ballot to commissioners Thursday and received their blessing to draft the ballot question.
The language, known as Option C during the public hearing process, includes limitation on operational use, airport expansion, noise, property use and the creation of an airport protection zone.
"We still have extremes on both sides of the issue," Mokrohisky told the board.
They range from no limits on airport use to no airport at all, he said.
"It's been a good public process," Mokrohisky said. "I hope we can use some things we learned her to engage the public in other critical issues."
John Garvin, co-chair of the Sustainable Growth Initiative committee, said his involvement in the public process over the last eight years usually was adversarial.
"I've got to say I've never seen such a nice example of local government and citizens working together to come up with such a quality product," Garvin said.
"The underlying problem with the old ordinance was that it was never enforced. It was discriminatory. I am convinced this product is good for the citizens," Garvin said.
Minden resident Jack Van Dien asked to be assigned to committees composing arguments for and against the ballot question because he wanted to make sure voters knew what they were deciding.
Steve Swabacker of the Carson Valley Vanguard Coalition echoed Garvin's comments supporting the process.
"They (the county) opened their doors. At no point did they shut off our public comment. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than we have? By about 5,000 percent," Swabacker said.
He said the coalition endorsed the language.
Commissioner Nancy McDermid asked whether the language, if adopted, would prevent the Minden-Tahoe Airport from being self-sustaining.
"We had a lot of conversations about unintended consequences," Mokrohisky said. "We agreed we don't think the ordinance would have a negative impact. It certainly has the intent to keep the airport self-sufficient."
The airport risks the loss of nearly $20 million in grant money doled out since 1984 if it fails to come into federal compliance.
Officials received a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration on April 9, 2009, 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.
The section of the ordinance that sets limits on airport expansion highlights the importance of infrastructure controls on maintaining an airport consistent with the airport master plan and the county's rural character, Mokrohisky said.
The language restricts pavement growth so that operations at the airport remain consistent with current capacity.
Under the ordinance, no FAA grant funds or county general funds would be used for anything but maintenance, noise control, FAA standards for general aviation airports, preservation of existing pavement and infrastructure for small aircraft and sport aviation.
"The language also precludes utilizing funds for a permanent control tower, precision landing system or passenger security systems," according to Mokrohisky.
There will be no attempt to seek or obtain airport certification for air carrier service.
The next step in the process is a public hearing at the March 4 commission meeting to discuss the ballot question.
Commissioners will appoint committees April 15 to draft arguments for and against passage of the ordinance.
The question must be submitted to the county clerk by July 19 to be on the Nov. 2 general election ballot.
