The proposed new airport use ordinance as approved by the Douglas County Board of Commissioners has no meaningful substance. In fact it does not refer to weight limits at all. It is designed to limit the activity of overweight aircraft by using a facility directory that indicates safe CMGTW, which is the "FAA certified maximum gross takeoff weight for aircraft of a particular type." At present the Minden-Tahoe Airport has not complied with the FAA to finally establish what that weight limit is. So we are being asked to approve an unknown and cede all citizen control to the FAA.
In addition, the airport is proposing a landing fee for overweight aircraft by using the airport manager to assess each overweight landing. The airport has a history of not enforcing onerous ordinances. What has changed to make us believe this approach will work?
The proposal also has civil penalties that can be assessed if prior permission to land an overweight aircraft has not been approved by the airport manager. These penalties range from $1,000 to $2,500 depending on how many times the aircraft has violated the landing permission. These civil penalties will be recovered in a civil action brought in the name of Douglas County by the Douglas County district attorney. When is the county going to find time to assess, document, witness, and serve violations? The airport manager must maintain and have sufficient records and documents to present to a court of competent jurisdiction before it can be enforced by injunction or other relief deemed appropriate. How can the airport manager take on all of this additional responsibility without increasing staff and reorganizing the administrative operation of the airport? What is the process if an overweight aircraft lands at the airport? What if the airport manager has gone for the day? Can anyone with knowledge of the ordinance assess a violation or some how report the violation to a county employee with knowledge of what to do next?
This proposed ordinance has a lot of words and no substance. It does not meet with the Carson Valley Vanguard Coalition position paper on the new airport ordinance as drawn up on Oct. 8, 2007. The citizens of Douglas County are being led down a path of plans that cannot be implemented. Where is the substance that the citizens of Douglas County asked for, noise control, and safe airspace approach? Where is the plan and explanation of how the airport is to maintain its sport and small aircraft identity? This ordinance departs from the concept of the original ordinance, which was to try and maintain a small airport for sport and general aviation. This new proposal opens the door for major changes without the restrictions of the original proposal. And if you think that the county or district attorney did not uphold the old ordinance, wait until they try to administer this one.
In conclusion, my opinion is that there is no possibility of enforcement, of the proposed ordinance. It puts the FAA in charge of the airport, not the county. It is full of legal loopholes. There is no funding source for the additional administrative functions that will be required to implement this ordinance. There is no protection for the citizens of Douglas County regarding noise, airspace, or times of operation. The citizens of Douglas County deserve more than a suggested voluntary compliance.
Is the county using the FAA compliance ruse to promote future growth and income at the airport? Why are the last five years of community study and input missing from the proposed ordinance?
Michael C. Walsh is a Gardnerville resident
