Questions surround airport fixed base operator issue

I am a supporter of the ballot measure which will appear on the November ballot establishing an airport use ordinance. If passed, one section of the measure requires the county to focus its funding mechanisms on the kind of infrastructure that is consistent with small aircraft and sports aviation activities (such as soaring) at the airport, future voter approval being otherwise required in critical areas with some noted exceptions.

It is important to realize, however, that words in an ordinance mean nothing when underlying actions are inconsistent with an ordinance's objective. A case in point is the present county action to force Soar Minden, operated by Tony Sabino, to give up the all important fuel selling portion of his business unless he fully complies to the letter of his commercial operator permit with the county. Without aviation fuel sales, it is doubtful that Soar Minden can survive.

It should be sufficient to say that Soar Minden has not changed its modus operandi over the many years it has been in business. As late as April 2007, the county validated Soar Minden's less-than-full-compliance operation pending performance by the county to supply power, water and sewer to the eastside of the airport where Soar Minden has paid for a ground lease since 2001 to build a permanent full service fixed based operation. To date the county has not performed this obligation. The county now insists that Soar Minden can build such a permanent facility on its ground lease on the west side even though the airport master plan envisions soaring activities be based on the east side.

So what is behind all this? At this point, the county appears to have tired of maintaining the status quo of Soar Minden's operation.

Should the county force Soar Minden to close down its fuel facility, Hutt Aviation, a fuel-selling competitor, will have a monopoly at the airport as to fuel sales. Fuel prices will, and some say, have already gone up because the county halted mobile fuel sales to aircraft by Soar Minden two months ago. While the county has indicated it will not tolerate a monopoly on fuel sales at the airport, once again the question is whether these are mere words or will it be backed up by action - and when will that might be?

Causing the close down of one of the two remaining soaring businesses at our airport by belated strict enforcement of the county's contract with Soar Minden is totally counterproductive to the objective sought to be achieved by the forthcoming airport use ordinance. The stated aim of the county has long been to resurrect, not drive out soaring. Our area is world renowned for this activity. It is therefore an important element in the county's economic development program. To this end, my suggestion is that the Soar Minden contract be changed to conform to the reality of what has long been the actual operating practice between the parties.