Larry Dighera
November 11th 05, 03:09 PM
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2005/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/20050921/Opinion/109210021/-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.
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/20050921/Opinion/109210021/-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.