If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Anti-Noise Nuts Take Over Truckee-Tahoe Airport
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...caact0511.html
AOPA Action in California What AOPA is doing for California COMPILED BY ALTON K. MARSH (From AOPA Pilot, November 2005.) Truckee-Tahoe Airport seen as battleground Are the three board members of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport District planning on violating rules that came with past FAA airport grants? It looks that way to supporters, and AOPA officials have identified Truckee-Tahoe Airport as the potential site of the country's next big airport battle. After winning a majority of the five airport board seats last year, noise opponents have now delayed accepting an additional $450,000 in federal grant money that might restrict their ability to impose noise or growth limits on the airport. The delay is apparently to allow time to hear from Denver attorney Peter J. Kirsch on options for imposing noise restrictions despite requirements that came with the acceptance in the past of millions of dollars of federal grant money. However, the board members have already begun to impose restrictions designed, in sly ways, to reduce evening airport noise. Their first effort was nearly fatal yet it continues. This incident was related by airport board President Michael Golden, but airport Manager Dave Gotshall said he has been unable to confirm it. To help neighbors near the airport sleep better, the board prohibited staff from selling jet fuel after 7 p.m. So, an organ transplant jet from the East Coast landed there recently, desperate to get fuel to continue the journey to Napa, and its pilots were met by a staff that refused to sell the fuel because of new board restrictions. The restriction was not available in a notice to airmen. The jet was forced to go to Sacramento on very low fuel, then on to Napa, where doctors were already behind schedule and waiting on the organ. There is no word on whether the airport board members who imposed the restriction ever learned of the danger they created. Had the patient died, it is possible the board would have found itself at the wrong end of a lawsuit. There is also no full fuel service after 7 p.m. for 100LL, although it can be bought at the self-serve pump, but the new twist is that even the self-serve pumps have been ordered turned off after 10 p.m. That has made a lot of pilots angry. Golden, an airport supporter, said it appears to him the new board members want to discourage pilots from patronizing the airport. He asks that pilots, therefore, intentionally patronize the airport whenever their plans call for visits to Truckee-Tahoe. The new board members, elected last fall, are members of the Community Airport Restoration Effort (CARE) that had raised concerns about land-use and noise related to the airport. The members directed the airport staff to have an "informative" meeting with Kirsch. AOPA officials know the attorney well, since he represented airport opponents in most major battles that AOPA has fought. At press time AOPA Regional Representative John Pfeifer was planning on attending the informational meeting. Kirsch, reached by phone, said he had not yet been retained by the airport and said he did not know what issues the airport wanted him to discuss. He referred an AOPA reporter to the airport staff. AOPA went to extraordinary steps to prevent the election of the new members last year by taking out newspaper ads informing the voters about the value of the airport. The Truckee-Tahoe Airport has accepted enough funding from the FAA in the past to still have restrictions in place — most last 20 years — on limitations to airport operations. The airport also accepted grants for purchase of land, and those grants require the continued operation of the land as an airport forever. The restrictions prevent discrimination against classes of pilots and types of operations. It appears the new board members feel that past restrictions that prohibit limiting operations can somehow be evaded, and that the new money now sought of $450,000 must not be accepted to avoid restarting the clock on restrictions already in place. To airport professionals, such views look naive at best, but to attorneys, restrictions are seen merely as a challenge. The FAA has indeed cut off grant money for airports that issue unfair restrictions on operations, but in one case was sued and ordered to continue the flow of federal money despite violation of FAA grant assurances. Do opponents want to close Truckee-Tahoe Airport? The board members have never said exactly what their goal is, but it looks to supporters like they are at the very least setting the stage to violate FAA requirements. And fuel restrictions make it appear the board doesn't want pilots to come at night — a typical goal of noise opponents — and doesn't want the airport to be a refueling stop for long-range jets. One board member stated he wanted to "negotiate terms and conditions with the FAA" according to information in the Sierra Sun*, the local Truckee newspaper. The three new board members seem unaware that half the airport's 1,000 acres was surplus military property and would return to the government, not the community, if the airport ever stops operating. The airport staff had requested permission of the board to seek a $450,000 grant for hangars already completed at Truckee-Tahoe Airport. The majority of the members — those favoring restrictions on operations — voted instead to seek advice on ways around restrictions that the money would bring, not realizing past FAA money already brought such restrictions. The restrictions have been explained in the past to the new board members by Golden. "They are in denial," Golden said in a telephone interview. * http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/...10021/-1/rss01 Does Truckee airport have money to burn? Kathryn Kelly Special to the Bonanza September 21, 2005 There are a lot of pilots who live in Incline and have airplanes at Truckee. Newspapers other than the Sierra Sun do not really cover what is going on at the airport despite the fact that there are a lot of pilots on the North Shore, and we all benefit from Careflight and firefighting operations that run out of the airport. I was therefore amazed to learn of the actions the airport board has been taking recently that are detrimental to the airport, and I think other Bonanza readers will be interested also. Thursday's airport board agenda in Truckee includes discussion of how to deal with its $900,000 deficit. Here's an easy answer to recovering half that amount: Accept $450,000 in grant funding from the FAA. Why would the board possibly turn down free money? Attendance at last month's board meeting provided a few clues. President Golden spoke at length about the fiduciary responsibility of the Board to accept these funds. Three board members (Eagan, Hetherington, Vatistas) - each of whom made campaign promises to accept federal funds - spoke out against accepting funding until they had "more time to study the issue." But delay and indecision is not a responsible answer; without an affirmative vote to accept the funds, the airport will lose them. Are there strings attached to the grants? Sure, and it does not take expensive attorneys to figure that out Ð it is all written in the FAA rules. FAA tries to require that airports operate fairly to all without discriminating against classes of pilots, types of aircraft and types of operations. They do not always have benefit of law so their most obvious "stick" is grant assurances. When an airport accepts FAA money, it certifies that it will continue to operate the airport in accordance with FAA guidelines for a period of time. The period varies with type of grant but is generally 20 years. Most airports cooperate with most assurances although some do choose to deviate in various ways, most notably by restricting types of aircraft and establishing curfews. How much money is at stake? Truckee Airport has accrued $150,000 per year over the past two years and will accrue another $150,000 in October for a total of $450,000 in FAA entitlement money Ð if the board votes to accept it. This money can be applied for to pay for a project somewhat retroactively. In a recent ruling, the new hangars that were just constructed at Truckee with taxpayer dollars have been made eligible for reimbursement by the $450,000 in FAA grant monies. If the board accepts the money to fund the hangars, the airport will have $450K to use at its sole discretion Ð or apply to the current deficit. If the board declines the money, the airport will pay for the hangars with tax dollars as originally planned, thereby losing $450,000 in completely fungible money. Truckee Airport has accepted FAA grants many times in its 50-year history. Most or all of the typical grant assurances apply to the airport for the next 17 years regardless of whether more money is accepted. Accepting more money will not change the existing assurances, just reset the clock on them three more years. In fact, grants the airport has accepted for purchase of land are perpetual already, so accepting more FAA grant funds does not in reality extend overall airport commitments at all. At the September board meeting, airport staff requested permission to apply to FAA for $450,000 to pay for the hangars which have so far been funded internally from airport funds. The board deferred the matter, saying they need more time and (costly) outside legal advice to study the grant assurances. Director Vatistas even stated he wanted to "negotiate terms and conditions with the FAA" despite the fact that airport legal counsel advised him that this approach is unlikely to be successful. So why would the board risk losing this money? The only stated objection is grant assurances. If the board fears grant assurances, they must have in mind opting out of them. The only reason to decline FAA money is a desire to violate FAA policy about keeping the airport open and operating it fairly and without discrimination. Since such assurances are in place now, at least three members of the board appear to be laying early groundwork for near-term violation of FAA policy. If the airport decides to violate other grant assurances already in place, the FAA most certainly will cut off future grant funding. In at least one recent case, FAA cut off grant funding to an airport in Naples, FL who banned Stage II jets. (Naples sued FAA and won a court order reinstating their ability to receive future grants. Cost to local taxpayers to cover legal expenses to "win" this battle? Five million dollars). Even without assurances, there are many groups who will be harmed by any closure or severe limitation to the airport. If the airport takes sufficiently egregious action, some of those groups will respond with costly legal action. Do we really want to fight expensive legal battles? Do we want to support a board that thinks we can win and is willing to commit our tax dollars to do so? Bottom line, it is fiscally irresponsible and negligent for the airport board not to accept federal grant funding and thus impose $450,000 on local taxpayers. Let them know your thoughts: Michael Golden Ð Kathleen Eagan - Paul Vatistas - Mary Hetherington - Steve Swigard - The board meets 9 a.m. tomorrow in the airport conference room. Tell the board to stop procrastinating, accept the federal grants, and uphold their chartered responsibility as board members to operate the airport for the benefit of the entire community. Kathryn Kelly works in Incline and lives in Kings Beach. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NAS and associated computer system | Newps | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 12th 04 05:12 AM |
Please help -- It's down to the wire | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 12 | July 14th 04 06:05 PM |
Here's the Recompiled List of 82 Aircraft Accessible Aviation Museums! | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 18 | January 20th 04 04:02 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |